材料呈现方式和复习与否对中文电子笔记学习效果的影响
|
摘要
笔记策略的"转换假说"指出:将听觉材料写下来比将视觉材料写下来的学习效果更好。本研究以此为基础,以104名大学生为被试,采用多元方差分析的方法,探讨了材料呈现方式和复习与否对拼音键入的中文电子笔记的即时和延时学习效果的影响。结果发现,电子笔记在视觉材料上比在听觉材料上的即时学习效果更优;在间隔一周后的延时重测中,复习后的延时学习效果显著优于不复习,但复习在视觉材料组和听觉材料组中的促进作用无显著差异。
As a folk adage said in china, "the palest ink is better than the best memory" is becoming a history. The electronic note-taking is becoming more and more popular and the traditional note-taking is being abandoned. Actually, electronic note-taking and traditional note-taking may differ in their encoding function, external-storage function and the combination of encoding function and storage function, and so on. The encoding function of the note-taking strategy determines its immediate learning effects. According to the "translation hypothesis", when using traditional note-taking, the immediate learning effects on visual materials are better than that on auditory materials. As using traditional notetaking, the orthographic processing is mainly activated. So, writing down what you hear produces more translations from phonological processing to orthographic processing. In English study, there is little difference between the processing translation modes of traditional note-taking and electronic note-taking in the face of the same materials. However, when typing Chinese electronic notes using Pinyin keyboard, the phonological processing is mainly activated. During handwriting of Chinese traditional notes, the orthographic processing is mainly activated. It means that when using Chinese electronic note-taking, the immediate learning effects on visual materials may be worse than on auditory materials.The combination of encoding function and storage function determines the delayed learning effects of the note-taking strategy. In order to study the "translation hypothesis", we ask participants to verbatim transcribe the materials. In this case, the Chinese electronic note-taking has the same storage function on the visual as in auditory materials. So, it is very important whether the immediate learning effects can be maintained well before review. The cognitive load generated during the translation process is mainly intrinsic cognitive load. The intrinsic cognitive load has limited help for learners to store information in their long-term memory. It means if the review is not timely, the immediate learning effects will not be maintained well. At this time, the role of review in visual group and in auditory group may be the same.Based on the "translation hypothesis", we took 104 college students as the participants, systematically discussed the influence of material's presentation mode, review or not and the test time on the learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking to test the above propositions. The results supported our hypotheses. The results were as follows:(1) The immediate learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking on visual materials were worse than on auditory materials;(2) If review was not allowed, there was no significant difference between visual group and auditory group in the delayed learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking;(3) There was no significant difference between visual group and auditory group in review effects.The present study extends our understanding of the "translation hypothesis" of note-taking. It is a new embodiment of the "translation hypothesis" in Chinese electronic note-taking. In conclusion, the study shows that using Chinese electronic note-taking when reading is better than using it when listen to lectures or reports. This advantage is mainly reflected in the immediate learning effects. However, to use this advantage in review, the review must be conducted in time.
As a folk adage said in china, "the palest ink is better than the best memory" is becoming a history. The electronic note-taking is becoming more and more popular and the traditional note-taking is being abandoned. Actually, electronic note-taking and traditional note-taking may differ in their encoding function, external-storage function and the combination of encoding function and storage function, and so on. The encoding function of the note-taking strategy determines its immediate learning effects. According to the "translation hypothesis", when using traditional note-taking, the immediate learning effects on visual materials are better than that on auditory materials. As using traditional notetaking, the orthographic processing is mainly activated. So, writing down what you hear produces more translations from phonological processing to orthographic processing. In English study, there is little difference between the processing translation modes of traditional note-taking and electronic note-taking in the face of the same materials. However, when typing Chinese electronic notes using Pinyin keyboard, the phonological processing is mainly activated. During handwriting of Chinese traditional notes, the orthographic processing is mainly activated. It means that when using Chinese electronic note-taking, the immediate learning effects on visual materials may be worse than on auditory materials.The combination of encoding function and storage function determines the delayed learning effects of the note-taking strategy. In order to study the "translation hypothesis", we ask participants to verbatim transcribe the materials. In this case, the Chinese electronic note-taking has the same storage function on the visual as in auditory materials. So, it is very important whether the immediate learning effects can be maintained well before review. The cognitive load generated during the translation process is mainly intrinsic cognitive load. The intrinsic cognitive load has limited help for learners to store information in their long-term memory. It means if the review is not timely, the immediate learning effects will not be maintained well. At this time, the role of review in visual group and in auditory group may be the same.Based on the "translation hypothesis", we took 104 college students as the participants, systematically discussed the influence of material's presentation mode, review or not and the test time on the learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking to test the above propositions. The results supported our hypotheses. The results were as follows:(1) The immediate learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking on visual materials were worse than on auditory materials;(2) If review was not allowed, there was no significant difference between visual group and auditory group in the delayed learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking;(3) There was no significant difference between visual group and auditory group in review effects.The present study extends our understanding of the "translation hypothesis" of note-taking. It is a new embodiment of the "translation hypothesis" in Chinese electronic note-taking. In conclusion, the study shows that using Chinese electronic note-taking when reading is better than using it when listen to lectures or reports. This advantage is mainly reflected in the immediate learning effects. However, to use this advantage in review, the review must be conducted in time.
引文
陈京军,许磊,程晓荣,刘华山.(2016).儿童汉字练习:纸笔手写与键盘拼音输入的效果比较.心理学报,48(10),1258-1269.
郭志刚.(2015).社会统计分析方法:SPSS软件应用.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
施仁青.(2014).高中生课堂笔记与数学学业成绩的相关性的调查研究.南京师范大学硕士学位论文.
王慧,李阳萍.(2013).基于多元方差分析的我国中部六省新型工业化水平差异性研究.科技管理研究,33(11),93-98.
张积家,李茂.(2010).汉字输入法对汉字形、音、义联结的影响.心理科学,33(4),835-838.
张清芳,杨玉芳.(2006).汉语词汇产生中词汇选择和音韵编码之间的交互作用.心理学报,38(4),480-488.
张卫国.(2014).电子笔记在项目化教学中的初步应用.价值工程,33(5),256-257.
周晓林,庄捷,吴佳音,杨大赫.(2003).汉语词汇产生中音、形、义三种信息激活的时间进程.心理学报,35(6),712-718.
Benton,S.L.,Kiewra,K.A.,Whitfill,J.M.,&Dennison,R.(1993).Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes.Journal of Educational Psychology,85(2),267-280.
Bonin,P.,Peereman,R.,&Fayol,M.(2001).Do phonological codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming?Journal of Memory and Language,45(4),688-720.
Bui,D.C.,Myerson,J.,&Hale,S.(2013).Note-taking with computers:Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall.Journal of Educational Psychology,105(2),299-309.
Chen.J.J.,Luo,R.,&Liu,H.S.(2016).The effect of pinyin input experience on the link between semantic and phonology of Chinese character in digital writing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,46(4),923-934.
Conway,M.A.,&Gathercole,S.E.(1987).Modality and long-term memory.Journal of Memory and Language,26(3),341-361.
Conway,M.A.,&Gathercole,S.E.(1990).Writing and long-term memory:Evidence for a“translation”hypothesis.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A,42(3),513-527.
Craik,F.I.,&Lockhart,R.S.(1972).Levels of processing:A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11(6),671-684.
Deimann,M.,&Keller,J.M.(2006).Volitional aspects of multimedia learning.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,15(2),137-158.
Gathercole,S.E.,&Conway,M.A.(1988).Exploring long-term modality effects:Vocalization leads to best retention.Memory and Cognition,16(2),110-119.
Glenberg,A.M.,&Swanson,N.G.(1986).A temporal distinctiveness theory of recency and modality effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,12(1),3-15.
Lin,L.,&Bigenho,C.(2011).Note-taking and memory in different media environments.Computers in the Schools,28(3),200-216.
Matthíasdóttir,á.,&Halldórsdóttir,P.(2007).Books vs e-material:What is the deal?In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies,Bulgaria:ACM.
Mueller,P.A.,&Oppenheimer,D.M.(2014).The pen is mightier than the keyboard:Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking.Psychological Science,25(6),1159-1168.
Novellino,G.R.,Edwards,R.,&McCallum,R.S.(1986).Use of microcomputers to copy information:Effects on free recall.Computers in Human Behavior,2(2),117-126.
Ouellette,G.,&Tims,T.(2014).The write way to spell:Printing vs.typing effects on orthographic learning.Frontiers in Psychology,5,117.
Peverly,S.T.,Ramaswamy,V.,Brown,C.,Sumowski,J.,Alidoost,M.,&Garner,J.(2007).What predicts skill in lecture note taking?Journal of Educational Psychology,99(1),167-180.
Quade,A.M.(1996).An assessment of retention and depth of processing associated with notetaking using traditional pencil and paper and an on-line notepad during computer-delivered instruction.Paper presented at the Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,13,Indianapolis,IN:NEA/DVI.
Ramsay,C.M.,Sperling,R.A.,&Dornisch,M.M.(2010).A comparison of the effects of students’expository text comprehension strategies.Instructional Science,38(6),551-570.
郭志刚.(2015).社会统计分析方法:SPSS软件应用.北京:中国人民大学出版社.
施仁青.(2014).高中生课堂笔记与数学学业成绩的相关性的调查研究.南京师范大学硕士学位论文.
王慧,李阳萍.(2013).基于多元方差分析的我国中部六省新型工业化水平差异性研究.科技管理研究,33(11),93-98.
张积家,李茂.(2010).汉字输入法对汉字形、音、义联结的影响.心理科学,33(4),835-838.
张清芳,杨玉芳.(2006).汉语词汇产生中词汇选择和音韵编码之间的交互作用.心理学报,38(4),480-488.
张卫国.(2014).电子笔记在项目化教学中的初步应用.价值工程,33(5),256-257.
周晓林,庄捷,吴佳音,杨大赫.(2003).汉语词汇产生中音、形、义三种信息激活的时间进程.心理学报,35(6),712-718.
Benton,S.L.,Kiewra,K.A.,Whitfill,J.M.,&Dennison,R.(1993).Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes.Journal of Educational Psychology,85(2),267-280.
Bonin,P.,Peereman,R.,&Fayol,M.(2001).Do phonological codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming?Journal of Memory and Language,45(4),688-720.
Bui,D.C.,Myerson,J.,&Hale,S.(2013).Note-taking with computers:Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall.Journal of Educational Psychology,105(2),299-309.
Chen.J.J.,Luo,R.,&Liu,H.S.(2016).The effect of pinyin input experience on the link between semantic and phonology of Chinese character in digital writing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,46(4),923-934.
Conway,M.A.,&Gathercole,S.E.(1987).Modality and long-term memory.Journal of Memory and Language,26(3),341-361.
Conway,M.A.,&Gathercole,S.E.(1990).Writing and long-term memory:Evidence for a“translation”hypothesis.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A,42(3),513-527.
Craik,F.I.,&Lockhart,R.S.(1972).Levels of processing:A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11(6),671-684.
Deimann,M.,&Keller,J.M.(2006).Volitional aspects of multimedia learning.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,15(2),137-158.
Gathercole,S.E.,&Conway,M.A.(1988).Exploring long-term modality effects:Vocalization leads to best retention.Memory and Cognition,16(2),110-119.
Glenberg,A.M.,&Swanson,N.G.(1986).A temporal distinctiveness theory of recency and modality effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,12(1),3-15.
Lin,L.,&Bigenho,C.(2011).Note-taking and memory in different media environments.Computers in the Schools,28(3),200-216.
Matthíasdóttir,á.,&Halldórsdóttir,P.(2007).Books vs e-material:What is the deal?In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies,Bulgaria:ACM.
Mueller,P.A.,&Oppenheimer,D.M.(2014).The pen is mightier than the keyboard:Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking.Psychological Science,25(6),1159-1168.
Novellino,G.R.,Edwards,R.,&McCallum,R.S.(1986).Use of microcomputers to copy information:Effects on free recall.Computers in Human Behavior,2(2),117-126.
Ouellette,G.,&Tims,T.(2014).The write way to spell:Printing vs.typing effects on orthographic learning.Frontiers in Psychology,5,117.
Peverly,S.T.,Ramaswamy,V.,Brown,C.,Sumowski,J.,Alidoost,M.,&Garner,J.(2007).What predicts skill in lecture note taking?Journal of Educational Psychology,99(1),167-180.
Quade,A.M.(1996).An assessment of retention and depth of processing associated with notetaking using traditional pencil and paper and an on-line notepad during computer-delivered instruction.Paper presented at the Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,13,Indianapolis,IN:NEA/DVI.
Ramsay,C.M.,Sperling,R.A.,&Dornisch,M.M.(2010).A comparison of the effects of students’expository text comprehension strategies.Instructional Science,38(6),551-570.