元认知与有效学习：原理与条件

陈启山; 温忠麟

元认知与有效学习：原理与条件

华南师范大学心理应用研究中心，广州 510631

基金项目:

教育部人文社会科学研究项目基金 09YJCXLX007

国家自然科学基金项目 30870784

计量
- 文章访问数: 223
- HTML全文浏览量: 313
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2010-03-30

Metacognition and effective learning: Principles and conditions

摘要

摘要: 研究者通常将元认知分为监测与调控两个子系统进行研究，并对元认知监测与元认知调控的关系及二者对个体学习的影响作用做深入探讨。基于元认知监测的学习调控是有条件的，首先是个体要有利用监测指导调控的机会，更重要的是个体的元认知监测要足够精确。通常情况下，个体的监测并不精确，但它是可以提高的。
- 元认知监测 /
- 精确性 /
- 元认知调控 /
- 有效性

HTML全文

图 1 基于监测的学习调控

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

参考文献(25)

[1]	陈启山. (2009).阅读中的元理解监测与元理解调控.心理学报, 41(8), 676-683. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90117X/200908/31451489.html
[2]	陈启山, 常蕤. (2009).读者的元理解监测为什么不精确?心理科学进展, 17(2), 706-713. http://www.oalib.com/paper/4920246
[3]	陈启山, 李利. (2008).理解评估与成绩预测:两种不同的元理解监测形式.心理学报, 40(9), 961-968. http://www.oalib.com/paper/1462334
[4]	Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128, 110-118. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006
[5]	Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281. doi: 10.3102/00346543065003245
[6]	Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249-275). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
[7]	Dunlosky, J., Kubat-Silman, A. K., & Hertzog, C. (2003). Training monitoring skills improves older adults' self-paced associative learning. Psychology and Aging, 18, 340-350. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.340
[8]	Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228-232. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x
[9]	Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition (pp. 1-8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
[10]	Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.93
[11]	Kennedy, M. R. T., Carney, E. & Peters, S. M. (2003). Predictions of recall and study strategy decisions after diffuse brain injury. Brain Injury, 17, 1043-1064. doi: 10.1080/0269905031000110436
[12]	Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
[13]	Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
[14]	Koriat, A., Ma'ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36-69. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
[15]	Kornell. N., & Bjork. R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219-224. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6144498_The_promise_and...
[16]	Matvey, G., Dunlosky, J., & Schwartz, B. L. (2006). The effects of categorical relatedness on judgements of learning (JOLs). Memory, 14, 253-261. doi: 10.1080/09658210500216844
[17]	Merkle, E. C., & Van Zandt, T. (2006). An application of the Poisson race model to confidence calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 391-408. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.391
[18]	Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159-163 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x
[19]	Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 174-179. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.1.174
[20]	Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463-477. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001
[21]	Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The "delayed JOL effect." Psychological Science, 2, 267-270. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00147.x
[22]	Nooteboom, S., & Quene, H. (2008). Self-monitoring and feedback: A new attempt to find the main cause of lexical bias in phonological speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 837-861. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.003
[23]	Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66
[24]	Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024-1037. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024
[25]	Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2005). The effects of prior knowledge on study-time allocation and free recall: Investigating the discrepancy reduction model. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139, 67-79. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.1.67-79