解題時機與範例類型對學習成效與認知負荷的影響

黃一泓

doi:10.6251/BEP.202106_52(4).0001

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2025/04/01~2025/06/30

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P731 - 755

社会科学 > 心理学
社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.6251/BEP

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

解题时机与范例类型对学习成效与认知负荷的影响

Effects of Problem Solving and Example-Based Learning on Cognitive Load and Performance

黄一泓(Yi-Hung Huang)

教育心理学报； 52 卷 4 期 (2021 / 06 / 01) ， P731 - 755

繁体中文 DOI： 10.6251/BEP.202106_52(4).0001

探索学习；比较范例；认知负荷理论； discovery learning ； comparing solution method ； cognitive load theory

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (42) │ 被引用文献 (2) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

The 12-year Basic Education Curriculum guidelines emphasize the importance of discovery activities in the curriculum. Therefore, methods of implementing discovery-based learning in the classroom and achieving effective teaching goals have become a major topic for current teachers. Alfieri et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 164 studies and reported that allowing students to only perform pure discovery activities may be detrimental to learning; however, assisted discovery learning, including feedback, worked examples, and self-explanation prompts, can benefit learning. Studies on assisted discovery learning, have provided empirical results regarding the integration of problem solving and example learning. These studies have indicated that learners who cooperate in solving problems before receiving direct teaching or seeing examples perform better than those who first receive direct teaching or examples and then solve problems. However, the findings of these studies only demonstrate that solving problems cooperatively and then studying examples is a more favorable approach than studying the examples individually and then practicing solving the problems. With inconsistent experimental conditions (i.e., cooperative vs. individual), distinguishing the effects of the variables of the timing of problem solving and the type of example learning on teaching effectiveness is impossible. Sweller and Paas (2017) also indicated that most of these studies did not control variables appropriately and that they changed multiple variables simultaneously. Therefore, the experimental designs of these studies were fundamentally flawed and could not isolate the effects of specific variables. Although some studies on the integration of problem solving and example learning have analyzed the learning process from the perspective of cognitive load theory, this is only a theoretical discussion. Studies have not conducted actual measurements of the cognitive load perceived by the learner during the learning process (Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012; Loibl & Rummel, 2014). In addition, for studies in which the experimental participants were elementary school students, only one item was used to evaluate cognitive load, such as ＂How much effort did you use in the process of learning just now?＂; in general, this cognitive load could not be accurately measured (Huang & Shie, 2016 ; Wong et al., 2012). Furthermore, if the intrinsic and extraneous cognitive loads perceived by the learner during learning cannot be known, cognitive load theory cannot be used to effectively analyze the learner's cognition and information processing during learning (Leppink et al., 2013). Therefore, this study excluded the effect of cooperative learning and allowed learners to learn materials individually to avoid confounding variables. The ＂basic quantity and comparative quantity＂ unit of mathematics was used for the experiments in this study. The researcher conducted an experiment to study the effects of two factors on learning outcomes and perceived cognitive load: Problem-solving timing (problem solving first or reading an example first) and the type of example (comparative example or problem-solving practice). The multidirectional scale developed by Leppink and van den Heuvel (2015) was used to measure intrinsic and extraneous cognitive loads perceived during learning, and an objective reference value was used for the learning outcome to observe germane cognitive load. Therefore, on the basis of cognitive load theory and the relevant literature, the research questions verified in this study were as follows: 1. Does the timing of problem solving and the type of worked-out example affect the intrinsic, extraneous, and overall cognitive load when students learn to draw line segments, operate line segments, and solve reference and comparison quantity problems? 2. Does the timing of problem solving and the type of worked-out example affect the test scores when students learn to draw line segments, operate line segments, and solve the reference and the comparison quantity problems? The researcher first used two factors (timing of problem solving and type of worked-out example) to design an experiment involving three exercises: drawing line segments, operating line segments, and solving a reference and comparison quantity problem. Second, 105 sixth-grade children were randomly assigned to four groups for the experiment: reading examples first then comparing examples (group 1), solving problems first then comparing examples (group 2), reading examples first then practicing problem solving (group 3), and solving problems first then practicing problem solving (group 4). After each exercise was completed, the cognitive load scale was used to measure the students' perceived intrinsic load and extraneous load. Finally, a learning test was used to evaluate the students' learning performance in drawing line segments, operating line segments, and solving the reference and the comparison quantity problems. The answers to the first three questions of the cognitive load scale indicated the perceived intrinsic load, and the answers to the last three questions indicated the perceived extraneous load. Factor analysis with the timing of problem solving and type of worked-out example as independent variables and the test scores and cognitive load indicators as the dependent variables was performed. The two-factor multivariate analysis revealed no significant interaction effect between the timing of problem solving and the type of example on the students' perceived cognitive load or the three test scores. The analysis also indicated that the perceived intrinsic load of the students who solved problems first was significantly higher than that of the students who read examples first when solving the reference and the comparison quantity problems. The overall perceived cognitive load of the students who solved problems first was also significantly higher than that of those who read examples first when operating line segments and solving the reference and comparison quantity problem. No significant difference was observed between the comparative example condition and the practicing problem solving condition in the students' perceived intrinsic, extraneous, or overall cognitive load No significant difference in test scores was observed between the different problem-solving timing conditions in the three tests; however, the test scores of the students who had seen a comparative example were significantly higher than those of the students who practiced problem solving when drawing line segments. Four sets of materials were designed to study the effects of problem-solving timing and worked-out examples on learning effectiveness and perceived cognitive load. The researcher used the multidimensional cognitive load scale to successfully measure the students' perceived intrinsic load and extraneous load. When the experimental conditions were controlled for and the cooperative learning variable was excluded, the experimental results were determined to be consistent with those of previous research regarding worked examples (Kalyuga et al., 2003; Renkl & Atkinson, 2003). The learning performance of group 2 was not higher than that of group 1. Different learning examples may be suitable for learning different types of knowledge. Therefore, on the basis of the findings of this study, the researcher proposes the following strategies for educators. First, because of the nature of problem-solving activities, learners may perceive a higher cognitive load; therefore, learning materials suitable for the level of learners should be carefully designed when implementing a strategy that involves solving problems. Second, the comparison of examples is suitable for learning conceptual knowledge, and practicing of problem solving is suitable for learning procedural knowledge. Finally, when designing teaching materials for comparative examples, educators should add incorrect examples to the materials. The correct and incorrect examples should be compared, and the learner must be asked to explain why the incorrect examples are wrong; doing so can repair the learners' knowledge and enable them develop the correct concept.

参考文献 ( 42 ) 〈TOP〉

黄一泓, Y.-H.,谢进泰(2016)。两种线段图表徵解题策略在学习成效上的比较。教育心理学报，47(7)，581-601。
连结：
黄儒杰, J.-C.(2018)。经济弱势学生目标设定、认知负荷与学习意志力之研究：以台北市与新北市国小为例。教育心理学报，49(3)，391-411。
连结：
Alfieri, A.,Brooks, P. J.,Aldrich, N. J.,Tenenbaum, H. R.(2011).Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?.Journal of Educational Psychology,103(1),1-18.
Anderson, J. R.,Fincham, J. M.,Douglass, S.(1997).The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,23,932-945.
Brünken, R.,Seufert, T.,Paas, P.(2010).Measuring cognitive load.Cognitive load theory and research in educational psychology

被引用文献 ( 2 ) 〈TOP〉

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址