首页> 外文期刊>Memory & cognition >Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits
【24h】

Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits

机译:代表性条件下的关键定义的协作测试:效率成本,没有学习效益

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223-239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments (ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1-2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions.
机译:预计学生将在许多不同年级和学科学习关键定义。因此,调查促进对关键定义的理解的方法对应用目的至关重要。最近的一项调查显示,学习者在学习关键定义时报告从事协作实践测试,结果也在学习者报告在现实背景下的合作测试(Wissman&Rawson,2016,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆,记忆中的协作试验时,所述学习者还报告了合作实践测试。 ,223-239)。然而,没有研究直接探索了在代表性条件下参与合作测试的有效性。因此,目前的研究评估了代表性条件下的关键定义的协作测试的成本(关于效率)和益处(关于学习)。在三个实验中(NS = 94,74,95),学员单独研究了关键定义,然后完成了检索实践,其单独或协同地发生(在Dyads中)。两天后,所有学习者完成了最终的个人测试。实验1-2的结果显示了成本(相对于效率),没有利益(相对于学习)从事关键定义的协同测试。实验3评估了为什么合作效益在代表性条件下不会出现的理论解释。成果,结果表明,在代表性条件下学习关键定义时,同工测试与个体测试不太有效和更少有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号