认知负荷与大学英语学习者个体差异的相关研究
|
摘要
有效教学历来是国内外教育研究的重点。顾名思义,有效教学的目的就是要使教学达到有效的理想状态。然而,目前国内教学的现状是教师起主导作用,是教育的核心所在,而学生的主体作用却被极大地忽视了。这种传统的教育理念仍然根深蒂固地残留在人们的脑海里。国内外大量研究发现,要使教学达到有效的理想状态,教学所采取的一切措施和活动都必须符合学生的认知规律,这就要求教育工作者对不同学生个体的认知规律有清楚的认识,以期达到教育的最终目的。
认知负荷理论在过去的30年里受到越来越多研究者和专家的重视,主要表现在对教学的评估和设计方面。该理论主要是关于发展有效的教学方法,以便能够充分利用学生有限的认知资源,并将其所获得的知识应用于现实环境当中。
本文试图系统地探究认知负荷与大学英语学习者个体差异之间是否存在密切的关系。该论文中所涉及的研究对象是山东青年政治学院大学一年级的134名学生,其中男生为41名,女生为93名,年龄从19岁到21岁不等。实验的开始主要是采用了调查问卷和镶嵌测验两种手段对实验对象进行了初步的前测,以此对其进行认知风格的划分。完成相关研究之后,笔者发现个体差异和认知负荷之间的确存在着密切的联系。其中,个体差异在本文当中主要体现在学生的前知识和认知风格两个方面。个体差异主要包含两个方面:生理差异和心理差异。在本文中,心理差异是研究的重点。心理差异同样由许多不同的组成部分构成,其中认知风格差异是一个重要方面并且作为个体差异的代表来研究其与认知负荷的关系。认知风格在本文中主要体现在三个方面:场独立-场依存型;整体-序列型和言语-视觉型。场独立和场依存型认知风格模式对学生的认知负荷影响甚微,而视觉-言语型模式则和认知负荷之间存在着密切的联系。当然实验本身也存在着局限性,比如实验研究范围仅仅局限于两个高校。在一定程度上来说,无法代表整个中国高校的现状。因此,进一步扩展研究领域将成为未来研究的重点。论文结尾之处笔者对如何促进英语教学和降低认知负荷提出了一些建议。根据这些建议,笔者希望广大英语教师能够意识到个体差异的重要性及因材施教的意义所在,以期达到有效教学的目标。
Effective instruction has always been the focus for educational researches both at home and abroad. As the name implies, effective instruction refers to such a kind of teaching result, that is, effective and efficient. At present, however, educational studies at home are paying more attention to educators and their teaching methods rather than students, who in fact should be the attention for instruction. According to the studies made by experts at home and abroad, the premise of effective instruction is that all the activities and measures taken by teaching have to correspond with the students’cognition law.
Cognitive load theory (CLT) is gaining increasing importance for the past 30 years, mainly in the field of evaluation and design of instruction. It is concerned with the development of effective teaching methods, which can make good use of students’limited cognitive capacity to apply acquired skills and knowledge to new situations. Thus, only in the condition that we have a good control of students’cognitive laws can we make full use of their limited cognitive resources.
In this thesis, an empirical research has been made for studying the relation between cognitive load and individual difference. The subject for this research is college students in Shandong Youth University of Political Science aged from 19 to 21 in four classes and the total number is 134 with 41 males and 93 females. With the instrument of questionnaires and Embedded Figure Test, students have accomplished smoothly the corresponding pretests, which enlighten the subsequent studies on relations between cognitive load and individual difference.
Having completed the correlative research, the author found that there was a close relation between individual difference and cognitive load, especially in the aspect of cognitive style (i.e., field-dependence & field-independence; holist & serialist; verbal & visual). Individual difference is composed of two parts: physiological and psychological parts, in which psychological part is the key for studying in this thesis. Psychological difference contains several components, in which cognitive style plays the key role in it and is the representative for individual difference in this paper. The field-dependent and field-independent models have little effects on students’cognitive load, while the verbal and visual models have a significant effect. Of course, there does exist some limitations contained in this research. The research scope is only confined to some colleges, or strictly just two colleges, which, in some aspect, cannot represent the overall phenomenon by all universities and colleges in China. Thus, further expanding or enlarging the research scope will be the core for future studies. In the end of the paper, several recommendations have been put forward on how to improve English teaching and decrease cognitive load. According to these suggestions, English teachers could learn the importance of individual difference and teach them in accordance with their aptitude.
认知负荷理论在过去的30年里受到越来越多研究者和专家的重视,主要表现在对教学的评估和设计方面。该理论主要是关于发展有效的教学方法,以便能够充分利用学生有限的认知资源,并将其所获得的知识应用于现实环境当中。
本文试图系统地探究认知负荷与大学英语学习者个体差异之间是否存在密切的关系。该论文中所涉及的研究对象是山东青年政治学院大学一年级的134名学生,其中男生为41名,女生为93名,年龄从19岁到21岁不等。实验的开始主要是采用了调查问卷和镶嵌测验两种手段对实验对象进行了初步的前测,以此对其进行认知风格的划分。完成相关研究之后,笔者发现个体差异和认知负荷之间的确存在着密切的联系。其中,个体差异在本文当中主要体现在学生的前知识和认知风格两个方面。个体差异主要包含两个方面:生理差异和心理差异。在本文中,心理差异是研究的重点。心理差异同样由许多不同的组成部分构成,其中认知风格差异是一个重要方面并且作为个体差异的代表来研究其与认知负荷的关系。认知风格在本文中主要体现在三个方面:场独立-场依存型;整体-序列型和言语-视觉型。场独立和场依存型认知风格模式对学生的认知负荷影响甚微,而视觉-言语型模式则和认知负荷之间存在着密切的联系。当然实验本身也存在着局限性,比如实验研究范围仅仅局限于两个高校。在一定程度上来说,无法代表整个中国高校的现状。因此,进一步扩展研究领域将成为未来研究的重点。论文结尾之处笔者对如何促进英语教学和降低认知负荷提出了一些建议。根据这些建议,笔者希望广大英语教师能够意识到个体差异的重要性及因材施教的意义所在,以期达到有效教学的目标。
Effective instruction has always been the focus for educational researches both at home and abroad. As the name implies, effective instruction refers to such a kind of teaching result, that is, effective and efficient. At present, however, educational studies at home are paying more attention to educators and their teaching methods rather than students, who in fact should be the attention for instruction. According to the studies made by experts at home and abroad, the premise of effective instruction is that all the activities and measures taken by teaching have to correspond with the students’cognition law.
Cognitive load theory (CLT) is gaining increasing importance for the past 30 years, mainly in the field of evaluation and design of instruction. It is concerned with the development of effective teaching methods, which can make good use of students’limited cognitive capacity to apply acquired skills and knowledge to new situations. Thus, only in the condition that we have a good control of students’cognitive laws can we make full use of their limited cognitive resources.
In this thesis, an empirical research has been made for studying the relation between cognitive load and individual difference. The subject for this research is college students in Shandong Youth University of Political Science aged from 19 to 21 in four classes and the total number is 134 with 41 males and 93 females. With the instrument of questionnaires and Embedded Figure Test, students have accomplished smoothly the corresponding pretests, which enlighten the subsequent studies on relations between cognitive load and individual difference.
Having completed the correlative research, the author found that there was a close relation between individual difference and cognitive load, especially in the aspect of cognitive style (i.e., field-dependence & field-independence; holist & serialist; verbal & visual). Individual difference is composed of two parts: physiological and psychological parts, in which psychological part is the key for studying in this thesis. Psychological difference contains several components, in which cognitive style plays the key role in it and is the representative for individual difference in this paper. The field-dependent and field-independent models have little effects on students’cognitive load, while the verbal and visual models have a significant effect. Of course, there does exist some limitations contained in this research. The research scope is only confined to some colleges, or strictly just two colleges, which, in some aspect, cannot represent the overall phenomenon by all universities and colleges in China. Thus, further expanding or enlarging the research scope will be the core for future studies. In the end of the paper, several recommendations have been put forward on how to improve English teaching and decrease cognitive load. According to these suggestions, English teachers could learn the importance of individual difference and teach them in accordance with their aptitude.
引文
[1] Astleitner, H., & Leutner, D.(1996). Applying standard network analysis to hypermedia systems: Implications for learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14,285-303
[2] Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Inc.
[3] Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51,355-365
[4] Brunken, R., & Leutner, D.(2001). Autmerksamkeitsverteilung oder Aufmerksamkeitsfokussierung? Unterrichtswissenschaft 29, 357-366
[5] Baddeley, A.D.(1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press
[6] Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91,276-292
[7] Carlson, R., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. J. Educ. Psychol. 95: 629-640
[8] Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, . (1984). Blocking learner error states in a training-wheels system. Human Factors, 26,377-389
[9] Carrol, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1987). The paradox of the active user. In J. M. Carrol (Ed.),Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction. British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 62, 233-246
[10] Chandler, p., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effects as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246
[11] Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathemetics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.453-493). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[12] Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114
[13] Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245
[14] Fisk, A.D., & Gallini, J.K. (1989). Training consistent components of tasks: Developing an instructional system based on automatic-controlled processing principles. Human Factors, 31,453-463
[15] Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K.(2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychology, 38,33-41
[16] Ginns, P. (2010). A mind is a terrible thing to waste: Enhancing student learning through a focus on cognitive architecture. Synergy. 30, 28-32
[17] Halff, H. M. (1993). Supporting scenario and simulation-based instruction: Issues from the maintenance domain. In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J.Muraida (Eds), Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp.231-248) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
[18] Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E., & Thagard, P. R.(1986). Induction: Processes of inference, leearning and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
[19] Herman. A. Witkin (1981) Cognitive styles, essence and origins. International Universities Press, 141
[20] John Sweller (1996). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4,295-312
[21] John Sweller(1999). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329-343
[22] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38
[23] Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merrienboer, J. J. G.,& Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17,373-391
[24] Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P.., and Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychology. 38:23-31
[25] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J.(1998). Levels of expertise and instructionaldesign. Human Factors, 40, 1-17
[26] Kalyuga, S., &Sweller, J. (2005a). Rapid dynamic assessmeent of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educaitonal Technology Research and Development. 53, 83-93
[27] Koedinger, K. R., & Alever, V. (2007). Exploring the assisstance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19. DOI 10. 1007/s10648-007-9049-0
[28] Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problem hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294
[29] Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14,257-274
[30] Leutner, D. (2000). Double-fading support: A training approach to complex softmare systems. Journal of Computer-assited Learning, 16, 347-357
[31] Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63
[32] Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V.K.(1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401
[33] Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50, 43-59
[34] Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63, 81-96
[35] Maylor J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1963). Effects of task complexity and task organization on the relative efficiency of part and whole training methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 217-224
[36] Mayer, R. E. & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,390-397
[37] Mayer, R.E. (1997)。Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19
[38] McNamara. D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B.,& Kintsch.. W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, backgground knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14,1-43
[39] Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review. 19. DOI 10. 1007/s10648-007-9048-1
[40] Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
[41] Nelson, L. M.(1999) Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth structional theory ( Vol. 2,pp. 241-267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[42] Newell, A. (1991). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[43] Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[44] Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual–coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
[45] Paas,F., & van Merrienboer, J, (1994a). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133
[46] Pass, F. G. W. C., Camp,G., & Rikers, R. (2001) Instructional compensation for age-related cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,181-186
[47] Pass et al., (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38,63-71
[48] Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E.(1996). The role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 144-161
[49] Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983) Intructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erllbaum Associates, Inc.
[50] Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.Educational Psychologist, 38,15-22
[51] Salden, R. J. C., Pass, F., Broers, N. J., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instructional Science, 32, 153-172
[52] Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in multi-media environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19. DOI 10. 1007/s 10648-007-9046-3
[53] Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilittion, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47-58
[54] Smith & Jonides (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33,5-42
[55] Spiro. R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimentional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.) Cognition, educational, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[56] Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Eds.), The pshchology of learning and motivation (vol. 43, pp. 215-266). San Diego, CA: Academic.
[57] Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31
[58] Sweller, J., & Levine, M.(1982). Effects of goal specificity on means-ends analysis and learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177
[59] Van Merrienboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177
[60] Vygotky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
[61] Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Pass, F. (2007). Intractivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review, 19. DOI 10.1007/10648-007-9045-4
[62]卜玉华,个体差异:认知风格与教育[J]嘉应大学学报(哲学社会科学),1998,第2期。
[63]曹世清,第二语言习得中学习风格研究评述[J]烟台师范学院学报,2001,第18卷第4期。
[64]曹宝龙,刘慧娟,林崇德,认知负荷对工作记忆资源分配策略的影响[J]心理发展与教育,2005,(1)。
[65]戴运财,场独立\依靠的认知方式和第二语言习得[J]外语与外语教学,2002,第34卷第3期。
[66]邓涛,李德俊,张秋菊,场依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析[J]心理科学,2000,第23卷第2期。
[67]范琳,认知方式差异与外语的因材施教[J]外语教学,2002,第23卷第2期。
[68]贺雯,认知方式研究的进展[J]心理科学,2003,第24卷第5期。
[69]黄成夫,女子的认知风格差异与二语习得[J]《中华女子学院学报》,第19卷第3期,2007。
[70]焦俊峰,第二语言习得研究:回顾与展望[J]浙江理工大学学报,2006,第23卷,第2期。
[71]金海艳,双重编码理论及其在英语阅读教学中的应用,延边大学硕士论文,2005。
[72]赖日生,曾晓青,陈美荣,从认知负荷理论看教学设计[J]江西教育学院学报(社会科学),2005,(1):52-55。
[73]林有鸿,认知风格差异与第二语言习得[J]《武夷学院学报》,2008,第27卷第6期。
[74]李立江,大学生言语-表象认知风格个体在记忆系统中信息表征偏好的研究,吉林大学博士学位论文,2005。
[75]攀习英,认知风格与外语教学策略的实证研究[J]高等工程教育研究,2006,第3期。
[76]秦晓晴,第二语言习得中认知方式研究的现状[J]外语教学与研究,2006年五月份第2期。.
[77] R.赖丁.庞维国译,认知风格与学习策略-理解学习和行为中的风格差异[M]上海华东师范大学出版社,2003。
[78]宋广文,李寿欣,学生认知方式及其教育应用的研究与进展[J]华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2000.。
[79]吴庆麟,教育心理学---献给教师的书[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2003。
[80]肖武云,认知风格与外语学习关系探索[J]《湘南学院学报》,2006,第27卷第4期。
[81]辛自强,认知负荷与认知技能和图式获得的关系及其教学意义[J]《华东师范大学学报》(教育科学版),2002,4,55-60。
[82]徐秀芝,影响英语写作能力的因素及教学策略[J]《山东师范大学外国语学院学报》(基础英语教育),2008,第10卷第3期。
[83]晏晓喻,从认知的视角探讨中专英语听力教学,华东师范大学硕士论文,2007。
[84]张小玲,张晓敏,场独立性和场依存性认知风格与大学英语阅读教学[J]《黄石理工学院学报》,2007,第24卷第4期。
[85]张必刚,影响英语阅读效率的非语言因素探讨[J]《四川教育学院学报》,2008,第24卷第10期。
[2] Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Inc.
[3] Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51,355-365
[4] Brunken, R., & Leutner, D.(2001). Autmerksamkeitsverteilung oder Aufmerksamkeitsfokussierung? Unterrichtswissenschaft 29, 357-366
[5] Baddeley, A.D.(1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press
[6] Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91,276-292
[7] Carlson, R., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. J. Educ. Psychol. 95: 629-640
[8] Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, . (1984). Blocking learner error states in a training-wheels system. Human Factors, 26,377-389
[9] Carrol, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1987). The paradox of the active user. In J. M. Carrol (Ed.),Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction. British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 62, 233-246
[10] Chandler, p., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effects as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246
[11] Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathemetics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.453-493). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[12] Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114
[13] Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245
[14] Fisk, A.D., & Gallini, J.K. (1989). Training consistent components of tasks: Developing an instructional system based on automatic-controlled processing principles. Human Factors, 31,453-463
[15] Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K.(2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychology, 38,33-41
[16] Ginns, P. (2010). A mind is a terrible thing to waste: Enhancing student learning through a focus on cognitive architecture. Synergy. 30, 28-32
[17] Halff, H. M. (1993). Supporting scenario and simulation-based instruction: Issues from the maintenance domain. In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J.Muraida (Eds), Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp.231-248) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
[18] Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E., & Thagard, P. R.(1986). Induction: Processes of inference, leearning and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
[19] Herman. A. Witkin (1981) Cognitive styles, essence and origins. International Universities Press, 141
[20] John Sweller (1996). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4,295-312
[21] John Sweller(1999). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329-343
[22] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38
[23] Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merrienboer, J. J. G.,& Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17,373-391
[24] Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P.., and Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychology. 38:23-31
[25] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J.(1998). Levels of expertise and instructionaldesign. Human Factors, 40, 1-17
[26] Kalyuga, S., &Sweller, J. (2005a). Rapid dynamic assessmeent of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educaitonal Technology Research and Development. 53, 83-93
[27] Koedinger, K. R., & Alever, V. (2007). Exploring the assisstance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19. DOI 10. 1007/s10648-007-9049-0
[28] Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problem hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294
[29] Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14,257-274
[30] Leutner, D. (2000). Double-fading support: A training approach to complex softmare systems. Journal of Computer-assited Learning, 16, 347-357
[31] Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63
[32] Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V.K.(1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401
[33] Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50, 43-59
[34] Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63, 81-96
[35] Maylor J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1963). Effects of task complexity and task organization on the relative efficiency of part and whole training methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 217-224
[36] Mayer, R. E. & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,390-397
[37] Mayer, R.E. (1997)。Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19
[38] McNamara. D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B.,& Kintsch.. W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, backgground knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14,1-43
[39] Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review. 19. DOI 10. 1007/s10648-007-9048-1
[40] Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
[41] Nelson, L. M.(1999) Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth structional theory ( Vol. 2,pp. 241-267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[42] Newell, A. (1991). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[43] Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[44] Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual–coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
[45] Paas,F., & van Merrienboer, J, (1994a). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133
[46] Pass, F. G. W. C., Camp,G., & Rikers, R. (2001) Instructional compensation for age-related cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,181-186
[47] Pass et al., (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38,63-71
[48] Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E.(1996). The role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 144-161
[49] Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983) Intructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erllbaum Associates, Inc.
[50] Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.Educational Psychologist, 38,15-22
[51] Salden, R. J. C., Pass, F., Broers, N. J., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instructional Science, 32, 153-172
[52] Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in multi-media environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19. DOI 10. 1007/s 10648-007-9046-3
[53] Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilittion, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47-58
[54] Smith & Jonides (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33,5-42
[55] Spiro. R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimentional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.) Cognition, educational, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[56] Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Eds.), The pshchology of learning and motivation (vol. 43, pp. 215-266). San Diego, CA: Academic.
[57] Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31
[58] Sweller, J., & Levine, M.(1982). Effects of goal specificity on means-ends analysis and learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177
[59] Van Merrienboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177
[60] Vygotky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
[61] Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Pass, F. (2007). Intractivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review, 19. DOI 10.1007/10648-007-9045-4
[62]卜玉华,个体差异:认知风格与教育[J]嘉应大学学报(哲学社会科学),1998,第2期。
[63]曹世清,第二语言习得中学习风格研究评述[J]烟台师范学院学报,2001,第18卷第4期。
[64]曹宝龙,刘慧娟,林崇德,认知负荷对工作记忆资源分配策略的影响[J]心理发展与教育,2005,(1)。
[65]戴运财,场独立\依靠的认知方式和第二语言习得[J]外语与外语教学,2002,第34卷第3期。
[66]邓涛,李德俊,张秋菊,场依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析[J]心理科学,2000,第23卷第2期。
[67]范琳,认知方式差异与外语的因材施教[J]外语教学,2002,第23卷第2期。
[68]贺雯,认知方式研究的进展[J]心理科学,2003,第24卷第5期。
[69]黄成夫,女子的认知风格差异与二语习得[J]《中华女子学院学报》,第19卷第3期,2007。
[70]焦俊峰,第二语言习得研究:回顾与展望[J]浙江理工大学学报,2006,第23卷,第2期。
[71]金海艳,双重编码理论及其在英语阅读教学中的应用,延边大学硕士论文,2005。
[72]赖日生,曾晓青,陈美荣,从认知负荷理论看教学设计[J]江西教育学院学报(社会科学),2005,(1):52-55。
[73]林有鸿,认知风格差异与第二语言习得[J]《武夷学院学报》,2008,第27卷第6期。
[74]李立江,大学生言语-表象认知风格个体在记忆系统中信息表征偏好的研究,吉林大学博士学位论文,2005。
[75]攀习英,认知风格与外语教学策略的实证研究[J]高等工程教育研究,2006,第3期。
[76]秦晓晴,第二语言习得中认知方式研究的现状[J]外语教学与研究,2006年五月份第2期。.
[77] R.赖丁.庞维国译,认知风格与学习策略-理解学习和行为中的风格差异[M]上海华东师范大学出版社,2003。
[78]宋广文,李寿欣,学生认知方式及其教育应用的研究与进展[J]华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2000.。
[79]吴庆麟,教育心理学---献给教师的书[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2003。
[80]肖武云,认知风格与外语学习关系探索[J]《湘南学院学报》,2006,第27卷第4期。
[81]辛自强,认知负荷与认知技能和图式获得的关系及其教学意义[J]《华东师范大学学报》(教育科学版),2002,4,55-60。
[82]徐秀芝,影响英语写作能力的因素及教学策略[J]《山东师范大学外国语学院学报》(基础英语教育),2008,第10卷第3期。
[83]晏晓喻,从认知的视角探讨中专英语听力教学,华东师范大学硕士论文,2007。
[84]张小玲,张晓敏,场独立性和场依存性认知风格与大学英语阅读教学[J]《黄石理工学院学报》,2007,第24卷第4期。
[85]张必刚,影响英语阅读效率的非语言因素探讨[J]《四川教育学院学报》,2008,第24卷第10期。