学术依据

一张表背后,是半个多世纪的学习科学

它看起来只是一张表,但每一列、每一个动作、每一种判断,都对应学习科学中经过反复验证的研究。简单是设计出来的,不是简化出来的。

格子学习法的学术脉络
格子里的设计对应的学习机制代表研究它说明了什么
一、四个问题(表格的列)
我要弄懂的是什么?自我提问King, 1992自己提出问题,比做笔记、做总结更能促进理解
它要先会什么?先备知识、学习层级Ausubel, 1968;Gagné, 1968影响学习最重要的因素是已有知识;技能有先后层级
为什么?追问式精加工、自我解释Pressley 等, 1987;Chi 等, 1989追问"为什么"、自己解释连接,理解更深,更能迁移
我是哪种情况?元认知监控Flavell, 1979知道自己哪里不懂,是有效学习的前提
所以接下来该做什么?自我调节学习Zimmerman, 2002自己计划、执行、检查,是自主学习的核心
二、怎么填
自己填,不看现成的生成效应Slamecka & Graf, 1978;Bertsch 等, 2007(元分析)自己产出的内容,比读到的记得更牢
每一格抄不到,只能想合意困难Bjork, 1994适度的费力,让学习更持久
固定的列学习支架Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976结构化的提示,让新手做出原本做不到的思考
检查题测试效应(提取练习)Roediger & Karpicke, 2006;Dunlosky 等, 2013用回忆来检验,比重复阅读有效得多;综述评为高效用
隔几天回来再填分散练习Cepeda 等, 2006(元分析);Dunlosky 等, 2013间隔复习,保持更久;综述评为高效用
格子连成图概念图Novak & Gowin, 1984;Nesbit & Adesope, 2006(元分析)自己构建概念之间的连接,比单纯阅读和听讲更有效
三、四种动作(构建时用)
换个地方看类比与结构映射Gentner, 1983把一个领域的关系结构搬到另一个领域
往细里挖精细化理论Reigeluth & Stein, 1983从整体到细节,一层层展开
推翻重来概念转变Posner 等, 1982旧理解被看清、被推翻,新理解才立得住
两个拼一起概念整合Fauconnier & Turner, 2002两个概念合成,产生新的意义
四、四种情况(识别时用)
没学懂先备知识缺失Ausubel, 1968新知识没有地方挂,要回到前面补
没连上精加工不足Chi 等, 1989两头都会,中间的"为什么"没有解释出来
被以前的理解带偏迷思概念Posner 等, 1982旧的直觉在和新规则打架,要摆在一起对比
不够熟技能未自动化Anderson, 1982懂了但没练熟,不用再讲,去练
五、为什么需要 AI 加格子
AI 在每一级旁边搭支架一对一辅导效应Bloom, 1984一对一辅导的学生,成绩比普通课堂高出约两个标准差;AI 让这种支架第一次有可能普及

对照:Dunlosky 等人 2013 年评估了十种常见学习方法,重读、划重点、做总结都被评为低效用,这恰恰是大多数人最常用的方法。格子把评为高效用和中等效用的几种,放进了同一个动作里。

参考文献

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4).
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View.
  3. Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The generation effect: A meta-analytic review. Memory & Cognition, 35(2).
  4. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing.
  5. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6).
  6. Cepeda, N. J., et al. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3).
  7. Chi, M. T. H., et al. (1989). Self-explanations. Cognitive Science, 13(2).
  8. Dunlosky, J., et al. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1).
  9. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think.
  10. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10).
  11. Gagné, R. M. (1968). Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 6(1).
  12. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2).
  13. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2).
  14. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3).
  15. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn.
  16. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception. Science Education, 66(2).
  17. Pressley, M., et al. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2).
  18. Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In Instructional-Design Theories and Models.
  19. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3).
  20. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6).
  21. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2).
  22. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Into Practice, 41(2).