Mettler Everett, Burke Timothy, Massey Christine M, Kellman Philip J
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA.
Cogsci. 2020 Jul-Aug;2020:773-779.
Adaptive generation of spacing intervals in learning using response times improves learning relative to both adaptive systems that do not use response times and fixed spacing schemes (Mettler, Massey & Kellman, 2016). Studies have often used limited presentations (e.g., 4) of each learning item. Does adaptive practice benefit learning if items are presented until attainment of objective mastery criteria? Does it matter if mastered items drop out of the active learning set? We compared adaptive and non-adaptive spacing under conditions of mastery and dropout. Experiment 1 compared random presentation order with no dropout to adaptive spacing and mastery using the ARTS (Adaptive Response-time-based Sequencing) system. Adaptive spacing produced better retention than random presentation. Experiment 2 showed clear learning advantages for adaptive spacing compared to random schedules that also included dropout. Adaptive spacing performs better than random schedules of practice, including when learning proceeds to mastery and items drop out when mastered.
在学习中使用反应时间进行间隔的自适应生成相对于不使用反应时间的自适应系统和固定间隔方案而言，能提高学习效果（梅特勒、梅西和凯尔曼，2016年）。研究通常对每个学习项目采用有限次数的呈现（例如4次）。如果项目一直呈现直到达到客观掌握标准，自适应练习是否有利于学习？已掌握的项目从活跃学习集中剔除是否有影响？我们在掌握和剔除的条件下比较了自适应间隔和非自适应间隔。实验1使用ARTS（基于自适应反应时间的排序）系统，将无剔除的随机呈现顺序与自适应间隔和掌握情况进行了比较。自适应间隔比随机呈现产生了更好的记忆保持效果。实验2表明，与同样包括剔除情况的随机安排相比，自适应间隔具有明显的学习优势。自适应间隔比随机练习安排表现更好，包括当学习进行到掌握阶段且项目掌握后被剔除的情况。
