ABSTRACT

Knowing when and how to most effectively use writing as a learning tool requires understanding the cognitive processes driving learning. Writing is a generative activity that often requires students to elaborate upon and organise information. Here we examine what happens when a standard short writing task is (or is not) combined with a known mnemonic, retrieval practice. In two studies, we compared learning from writing short open-book versus closed-book essays. Despite closed-book essays being shorter and taking less time, students learned just as much as from writing longer and more time intensive open-book essays. These results differ from students’ own perceptions that they learned more from writing open-book essays. Analyses of the essays themselves suggested a trade-off in cognitive processes; closed-book essays required the retrieval of information but resulted in lower quality essays as judged by naïve readers. Implications for educational practice and possible roles for individual differences are discussed.

摘要

要知道何时以及如何最有效地将写作用作学习工具，需要了解促进学习的认知过程。写作是一项创举活动，通常需要学生详细阐述和组织信息。在这里，我们检查当标准的简短写作任务与（或没有）与已知的助记符检索实践结合时会发生什么。在两项研究中，我们比较了撰写简短的开卷和闭卷论文时的学习情况。尽管已完成的闭卷论文更短，花费的时间更少，但学生从写更长，更耗时的开卷论文中学到的东西也一样多。这些结果有别于学生自己的看法，即他们从撰写公开本论文中学到了更多东西。对论文本身的分析表明，在认知过程中需要进行权衡。闭本论文要求检索信息，但由于天真的读者的判断，其论文质量较低。讨论了对教育实践的影响以及个体差异的可能作用。