4.4 Article

Generative Learning Versus Retrieval Practice in Learning From Text: The Cohesion and Elaboration of the Text Matters

期刊

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 111, 期 8, 页码 1341-1361

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000345

关键词

retrieval practice; retrieval-based learning; generative learning; learning activities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both generative learning tasks and retrieval practice tasks can serve as a beneficial follow-up to an initial study phase in which learners have studied new learning material. However, research that compares the effects of these 2 types of learning tasks is scarce. Therefore, it is widely unknown whether, and if so under which conditions, the one or the other type of task is better suited to optimizing learning outcomes. We hypothesized that in learning from text, the effects between generative learning and retrieval practice tasks depend on the cohesion and elaboration of the text. To test this prediction, in two 2 x 2-factorial experiments we varied whether university students were prompted to engage in retrieval practice (with vs. without) and generative learning activities (with vs. without) after an initial study phase in which learners read an expository text that was either of high cohesion and elaboration (Experiment 1) or of low cohesion and elaboration (Experiment 2). When the expository text was of high cohesion and elaboration, engaging learners in retrieval practice was beneficial, whereas engaging learners in generative activities was not. By contrast, when the learning material was of low cohesion and elaboration, only engaging learners in generative learning activities was beneficial. Furthermore, in these circumstances engaging learners in generative activities lost its effectiveness when learners were also engaged in retrieval practice. We conclude that generative learning tasks and retrieval practice tasks serve different functions and, thus, differ in the state of learners' mental representations in which they are most beneficial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据