مقدمه‌ای بر عصب‌شناسی یادگیری و نقش فراشناخت در فرایندهای یاددهی ـ یادگیری

نویسنده

استادیار، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه علوم و فنون هوایی شهید ستاری، تهران. ایران

چکیده

زمینه و هدف: تحقیقات نشان می‌دهد که افراد به‌طور مداوم از مدل‌های ذهنی نادرست درزمینه نحوه یادگیری و حافظه استفاده می‌کنند و این امر آن‌ها را در معرض خطا، ارزیابی‌های نادرست و سوء مدیریت یادگیری خویش قرار می‌دهد. بر این اساس این مقاله به مطالعه ابعاد شناختی ـ عصبی یادگیری می‌پردازد.
روش‌شناسی: روش پژوهش، کتابخانه­ای ـ استنادی با رویکرد فراترکیب است. بدین ترتیب 104 منبع کلیدی و مرتبط شناسائی و پس از غربال‌گری 49 منبع  با بکارگیری روش فراترکیب و تفسیر کیفی مورد واکاوی قرار گرفته است.
یافته‌ها: نحوه جذب، ذخیره و بازیابی اطلاعات در مغز با آنچه درکامپیوتر اتفاق می افتد متفاوت است و فرایندی پویا، همراه با خطا، استنباطی و قابل‌بازسازی است .
نتیجه‌گیری: شناسائی ابعاد عصبی ـ شناختی یادگیری دریچه جدیدی را به سوی فهم بهتر و اثربخش تر فرایندهای یادگیری ـ یاددهی گشوده است و استفاده از ظرفیت های آن می تواند محیط های یادگیری را پویاتر سازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126-131.

Battro,Antonio M., Fischer, Kurt W., & Pierre J. Le´na(2008). The Educated Brain:Essays in Neuroeducation. Cambridge University Press.

BjorkRA,BjorkEL.1992.A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation.In From Learning Processes to Cognitive Processes: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes, ed. A Healy, S Kosslyn, R Shiffrin, vol.2,pp.35–67.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Bjork, Robert,A Dunlosky,John, and Kornell Nate (2013). Self-RegulatedLearning: Beliefs,Techniques, andIllusions. The Annual Review of Psychology.64:417–44.

Carpenter SK. 2011. Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37:1547–52.

CepedaNJ,Pashler,VulE,WixtedJT,RohrerD.2006.Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks:a review and quantitative synthesis.Psychol.Bull.132:354–80.

Cooper, S.J. (2005). Donald O. Hebb’s synapse and learning rule: a history and commentary. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 28, 851-874.

Cred´e M, Phillips L. 2011. A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire.Learn. Individ. Differ. 21:337–46.

De Wit S & Dickinson A (2009). Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: a case for animal-human translational models. Psychol Res 73(4), 463–76.

 Dunlosky,J., Serra, M., & Baker,J. M.C. (2007). Metamemory. In F.Durso Et Al. (2nd Edtion) Handbook Of Applied Cognition. New York: Wiley.

Dunlosky,John &, Metacalf, Janet (2009).Metacognition.Sage Publication.

Hacker,Douglas J; Dunlosky,John and Graesser, Arthur, C. (2009). Handbook of Metacognition in Education. New York: Routledge.

Hart JT. 1965. Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. J. Educ. Psychol. 56:208–16

Hartwig MK, Dunlosky J. 2012. Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related toachievement.Psychon.Bull.Rev.19:126–34.

Hebb D (1949). The Organization of Behavior. Wiley, New York.

Hernandez AE & Li P (2007). Age of acquisition: Its neural and computational mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin. 133(4), 638–650.

Hogarth L, Chase HW, & Baess K (2010). Impaired goal-directed behavioural control in human impulsivity. Q J Exp Psychol 10:1–12.

 Gaser C & Schlaug G (2003). Brain Structures Differ between Musicians and Non-Musicians. Journal of Neuroscience 23(27), 9240–9245.

Hartwig MK, Dunlosky J. 2012. Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19:126–34.

Karpicke JD, Butler AC, RoedigerH. 2009. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own. Memory 17:471–79

Kornell, N, Bjork, RA(2007).The promise and perils of self-regulated study.Psychon.Bull.Rev.6:219–24.

Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin(Ed.), Animal mind—human mind (pp. 201–224). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36–69. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36.

Olusola O. Adesope, Dominic A. Trevisan,Narayankripa Sundararajan(2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659– 701

McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494–513.

McCabe JA. 2011. Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Mem. Cogn. 39:462–76.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2): 81–97.

Nelson TO, Narens L. 1990. Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. In The Psychology of LearningandMotivation,vol.26,ed.GHBower ,pp.125–73.NewYork:Academic.

Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremelyAccurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed JOL effect.” Psychological Science, 2,267–270.

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Papert, S. (1979). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.

PashlerH,McDanielM,RohrerD,BjorkRA.2009.Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest3:105–19.

Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ. 1993. Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53:801–3

Prickaerts, J., Koopmans, G., Blokland, A., & Scheepens, A. (2004). Learning and adult neurogenesis: Survival with or without proliferation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 81, 1-11.

Pyc MA, Rawson KA. 2010. Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science 330:335

Pyc MA, Rawson KA. 2012. Why is test–restudy practice beneficial for memory. An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 38:737–46.

Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. 2006. The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1:181–210.

Schwartz BL, Benjamin AS, Bjork RA. 1997. The inferential and experiential basis of metamemory. Curr. Dir.Psychol. Sci. 6:132–37.

Schwieren, J., Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2017). The testing effect in the psychology classroom: A meta-analytic perspective. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(2), 179-196.

Smith SM, Rothkopf EZ. (1984). Contextual enrichment and distribution of practice in the classroom. Cogn. Instr.1:341–58.

Shohamy, D., Myers, C.E., Kalanithi, J., & Gluck, M.A. (2008). Basal ganglia and dopamine contributions to probabilistic category learning. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 219-236.

Son Lisa K.& Sethib, Rajiv(2006). Metacognitive Control and Optimal Learning. Cognitive Science (30). 759–774.

Vaughn KE, Rawson KA. 2011. Diagnosing criterion-level effects on memory: What aspects of memory are enhanced by repeated retrieval? Psychol. Sci. 22:1127–31.

Wissman KT, Rawson KA, Pyc MA. 2012. How and when do students use flashcards. Memory. 6:568–79.

Yang, C., Sun, B. & Shanks, D.R. Mem Cogn (2017). The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring. Memory & Cognition.1-14.  doi:10.3758/s13421-017-0772-6.

Zaromb FM, Roediger H. 2010. The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Mem. Cogn. 38:995–1008.