Трансфер по аналогии

Так же в число самых эффективных стратегий работы на понимание и перенос входят практики обучения с использованием схем (schema-based instructions). Как нам удалось показать в своем исследовании, качество схемы отражает степень понимания материала и играет значимую роль для переноса. Стоит отметить, что визуальное репрезентирование как метод структурирования задачи оказывается полезным только для работы с трудными для ученика задачами (Beitzel, Staley, 2015; Zahner, Corter, 2010).

Итак, как показало наше исследование, построение ментальной модели задачи принципиально необходимый этап для переноса. Модель представляет собой структурное описание задачи и свидетельствует о степени понимания материала. Чем качественнее составлена модель, тем выше вероятность ее переноса на другие аналогичные задачи. Способствующее обучение должно быть организовано особым образом, чтобы учесть все нюансы и специфические особенности понимания и структурирования.

Мы предложили рекомендации для организации глубокого понимания и переноса, основанного на активной позиции ученика. В них мы отразили основных особенности понимания информации и работы с ней. Во-первых, мы описали принципиальное значение структурного сопоставления. Во-вторых, уделили особое внимание использованию различных учебных примеров. В-третьих, указали на важную роль развития метакогнитивных навыков, связанных с развитием навыков анализа, сравнения и обобщения. Мы надеемся, что наши результаты и выводы будут полезны для широкой аудитории, как исследователей в области психологии и образования, так и для педагогов, учащихся и их родителей.

Список литературы

1. Тюменева Ю.А., Шкляева И.В. (2016a). Два подхода к пониманию «применения знаний»: трансфер и моделирование. Обзор литературы и критика. Вопросы образования (в печати).

2. Тюменева Ю.А., Шкляева И.В. (2016b). Что я должен здесь увидеть? Когда самостоятельность в изучении нового мешает применению изученного. Вопросы психологии (в печати).

3. Asha K. Jitendraa, Jon R. Starb, Kristin Starostac, Jayne M. Lehc, Sheetal Soodc, Grace Caskiec (2009). Improving seventh grade students learning of ration and proportion: the role of schema-based instruction, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 250-264.

4. Atkinson R.K., Renkl A., Merrill M.M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 774-783.

5. Baddeley A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.

6. Baddeley A.D., Hitch G.J. (1974). Working memory. Recent advances in learning and motivation, 8, 47-90.

7. Barnett S.M., Ceci S.J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612-637.

8. Beitzel Brian D., Staley Richard K. (2015). The Efficacy of Using Diagrams: When Solving Probability Word Problems in College. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1, 130-145.

9. Bereby-Meyer, Moran, Unger-Aviram (2004). When performance goals deter performance: Transfer of skills in integrative negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93,142-154.

10. Bethany Rittle-Johnson (2006). Promoting Transfer: Effects of Self-Explanation and Direct Instruction. Child Development, 77, 1-15.

11. Bliznashki, S., Kokinov, B. (2010). Relational versus attributional mode of problem solving? Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 465-470.

12. Boonen, A.J.H., Van der Schoot, M., Van Wesel, F., De Vries, M.H., Jolles, J. (2013). What underlies successful word problem solving? A path analysis in sixth grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 271-279.

13. Bransford J.D., Schwartz D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.

14. Brown A.L., Mary J., Kane Catharine, H. Echols (1988). Young Children's Mental Models Determine Analogical Transfer across Problems with a Common Goal Structure. Cognitive Development, 1, 103 - 121.

15. Brown A.L., Kane, M.J. (1986) Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493-523.

16. Catrambone R., Holyoak K.J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147-1156

17. Chi M.T.H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models // In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, P. 161-238. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18. Chi M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M.W., Reimann, P., Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.

19. Christie S., Gentner D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 356-373.

20. Cummins D. (1992). Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of problem categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1103-1124.

21. Cummins D. (1992). Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of problem categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1103-1124.

22. Day Samuel B., Goldstone Robert L. (2012). The Import of Knowledge Export: Connecting Findings and Theories of Transfer of Learning. Educational Psychologist, 47, 153-176

23. Didierjean A., Nogry S. (2004). Reducing structural-element salience on a source problem produces later success in analogical transfer: What role does source dif?culty play? Memory & Cognition, 32, 1053-1064.

24. Druckman, D., Bjork, R.A. (1994). Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

25. Duncker K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological monographs, 5.

26. Engle, Meyer, Clark, White, Mendelson, Nix S. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations. Educational Psychologis, 3, 15-231.

27. Fong, G.T., Krantz, D.H., Nisbett, R.E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253-292.

28. Gentner D., Loewenstein J., Thompson L. (1999). Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 586-597.

29. Gentner D., Loewenstein J., Thompson L., Forbus K.D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33, 1343-1382

30. Gentner D., Smith L. (2012). Analogical reasoning. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 130-136

31. Gentner D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.

32. Gick M.L., Holyoak K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355

33. Gick M.L., McGarry S.J. (1992). Learning from mistakes: Inducing analogous solution failures to a source problem produces later successes in analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 623-639.

34. Gick Mary L., Holyoak K.J. (1983). Schema Induction and Analogical Transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15 (1), 1-38.

35. Greeno J.G. (1977). Process of understanding in problem solving. In N.J. Castellan D.B. Pisoni G.R. Potts (Eds.), Cognitive theory, 2, 43-83.

36. Greeno J.G., Smith D.R., Moore J.L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D.K. Detterman, Sternberg R.J. (Eds.), Transfer on rial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction, 99-167.

37. Hegarty M., Kozhevnikov M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684-689.

38. Hesse M.B. (1966). Models and ana Zogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press

39. Hofstadter Douglas R., Sander Emmanuel (2013). Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking

40. Holyoak K.J., Novick L.R., Melz E. (1994). Component processes in analogical transfer: Mapping, pattern completion, and adaptation. In K.J. Holyoak K.J., Barnden J.A. (Eds.), Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory, 2, 113-180.

41. Hummel J.E., Holyoak K.J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 3, 427.

42. Hummel J.E., Holyoak K.J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological review, 2, 220.

43. Kurtz K.J., Boukrina O., Gentner D. (2013). Comparison promotes learning and transfer of relational categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1303-1310.

44. Larkin J.H., Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.

45. Lewis M.W., Anderson J.R. (1985). Discrimination of operator schemata in problem solving: Learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 26-65.

46. Lewis A.B., Mayer R.E. (1987). Students' miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363-37.

47. Logie R.H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

48. Lombrozo T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 10.

49. Mayer R. (1992). Mathematical problem solving: Thinking as based on domain specific knowledge. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Thinking, problem solving, and cognition, 455-489.

50. McGuinness C. (1986). Problem representation: The effects of spatial arrays. Memory & Cognition, 14, 270-280.

51. Nasarudin Abdullah, Lilia Halim, Effandi Zakaria (2014). VStops: A Thinking Strategy and Visual Representation Approach in Mathematical Word Problem Solving toward Enhancing STEM Literacy Eurasia, Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10 (3), 165-174.

52. Novick L.R., Holyoak K.J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 398-415.

53. Novick L.R. (1990). Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science, 1, 128-132.

54. Novick L., Hmelo C.E. (1994). Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1296-1321.

55. Poltrock S.E., Agnoli F. (1986). Are spatial visualization ability and visual imagery ability equivalent? Erlbaum, 3, 255-296.

56. Reed, S.K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 124-139.

57. Reeves L.M., Weisberg R.W. (1991). Abstract versus concrete information as the basis for transfer in problem solving: Comment on Fong and Nisbett. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1, 125-128.

58. Renkl A., Stark R., Gruber H., Mandl H. (1989). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90-108.

59. Reusser, K. (1996). From cognitive modeling to the design of pedagogical tools. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, 81-103.

60. Richland L.E., McDonough I.M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 28-4.

61. Ross B.H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 629-639.

62. Salomon G., Perkins D.N. (1992). Transfer and Learning. Interaction Encyclopedia of Education Second Edition. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

63. Schliemann A.D., Nunes T. (1990). A situated schema of proportionality. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 259-268.

64. Serafino K., Cicchelli T. (2003). Cognitive theories, prior knowledge, and anchored instruction on mathematical problem solving and transfer. Education and Urban Society, 36. P. 79-93.

65. Thorndike E.L. (1906). Principles of teaching. New York: Seiler.

66. Thorndike E.L., Woodworth R.S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions: (I). Psychological Review, 8, 247-261.

67. Tversky A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.

68. Wertheimer M. (1982). Productive thinking (enlarged ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1959).

69. Winston P.H. (1980). Learning and reasoning by analogy. Communications of the ACM, 23, 689-703.

70. Woodworth R.S., Schlosberg H. (1954). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

71. Zahner D., Corter James E. (2010). The Process of Probability Problem Solving: Use of External Visual Representations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12 (2), 177-204.

Размещено на Allbest.ru