東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The Cognitive Benefits of Learning b...

Fiorella, Christopher L.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The Cognitive Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Cognitive Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy./
作者:	Fiorella, Christopher L.
面頁冊數:	70 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 52-02.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International52-02(E).
標題:	Educational psychology. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1545806
ISBN:	9781303425455

The Cognitive Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy.
Fiorella, Christopher L.

The Cognitive Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy. - 70 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 52-02.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of California, Santa Barbara, 2013.

Four experiments sought to disentangle the relative benefits of teaching expectancy (i.e., preparing to teach) and actually teaching (i.e., explaining to others) on learning. Participants studied a paper-based multimedia lesson on the Doppler Effect with the expectation of teaching or being tested on the material; some participants actually taught the material (by providing a video-recorded lecture), whereas others only studied the lesson. Participants then completed a comprehension test either immediately or following a one-week delay. Results indicated that when tested immediately (Experiments 1 and 3), those who prepared to teach outperformed those who prepared to be tested (i.e., a teaching expectancy effect; Experiment 1: d = .59; Experiment 3: d = .55); further, the act of teaching did not improve learning beyond preparing to teach. However, when tested following a one-week delay (Experiments 2 and 4), participants who actually taught the material outperformed those who only prepared to teach (i.e., a teaching effect; Experiment 2: d = .79; Experiment 4: d = .90), and the teaching expectancy effect was eliminated. Overall, these findings suggest that preparing to teach helped students better manage essential processing (i.e., processing related to initially representing the material), which may result in short-term benefits, whereas actually teaching fostered deeper generative processing (i.e., processing related to making sense out of the material), which is critical for achieving long-term learning.

ISBN: 9781303425455Subjects--Topical Terms:

517650
Educational psychology.

The Cognitive Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy.
LDR:02409nmm a2200289 4500 001 2070142
005 20160531113944.5
008 170521s2013 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303425455
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1545806
035 $a AAI1545806
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Fiorella, Christopher L. $3 3185171
245 1 4 $a The Cognitive Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy.
300 $a 70 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 52-02.
500 $a Adviser: Richard E. Mayer.
502 $a Thesis (M.A.)--University of California, Santa Barbara, 2013.
520 $a Four experiments sought to disentangle the relative benefits of teaching expectancy (i.e., preparing to teach) and actually teaching (i.e., explaining to others) on learning. Participants studied a paper-based multimedia lesson on the Doppler Effect with the expectation of teaching or being tested on the material; some participants actually taught the material (by providing a video-recorded lecture), whereas others only studied the lesson. Participants then completed a comprehension test either immediately or following a one-week delay. Results indicated that when tested immediately (Experiments 1 and 3), those who prepared to teach outperformed those who prepared to be tested (i.e., a teaching expectancy effect; Experiment 1: d = .59; Experiment 3: d = .55); further, the act of teaching did not improve learning beyond preparing to teach. However, when tested following a one-week delay (Experiments 2 and 4), participants who actually taught the material outperformed those who only prepared to teach (i.e., a teaching effect; Experiment 2: d = .79; Experiment 4: d = .90), and the teaching expectancy effect was eliminated. Overall, these findings suggest that preparing to teach helped students better manage essential processing (i.e., processing related to initially representing the material), which may result in short-term benefits, whereas actually teaching fostered deeper generative processing (i.e., processing related to making sense out of the material), which is critical for achieving long-term learning.
590 $a School code: 0035.
650 4 $a Educational psychology. $3 517650
650 4 $a Cognitive psychology. $3 523881
650 4 $a Instructional design. $3 3172279
690 $a 0525
690 $a 0633
690 $a 0447
710 2 $a University of California, Santa Barbara. $b Psychology. $3 1029050
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 52-02(E).
790 $a 0035
791 $a M.A.
792 $a 2013
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1545806