基于认知负荷理论的ACT阅读课堂教学设计
The Teaching Design of ACT Reading Class Based on Cognitive Load Theory
DOI: 10.12677/OETPR.2022.42010, PDF, 下载: 266  浏览: 1,046 
作者: 阴 哲：新东方教育科技集团国际教育事业部，北京
关键词: ACT阅读考试；认知负荷理论；认知负荷过载；ACT Reading Test； Cognitive Load Theory； Cognitive Overload
摘要: ACT阅读是对中国ACT考生最具挑战性的单项，然而ACT阅读传统教学由于部分教学步骤与设计依据不够清晰，导致学生在信息处理上认知负荷过载，进一步对学习效能产生不利影响。本文旨在基于认知负荷理论重建ACT阅读课堂，探讨通过重新分配教学内容，管理内部认知负荷；通过优化教学步骤设计与教学指令，降低外部认知负荷。本文最后对ACT阅读的有效课堂教学提出了建议。
Abstract: ACT reading section, among the four multiple-choice sections of American College Test, has been the most challenging for Chinese candidates. During conventional ACT reading course, however, due to some teaching steps together with their design basis being unclear, cognitive overload could happen when students are processing information, which further exerts adverse influence on learning efficacy. By rebuilding an ACT reading class based on cognitive load theory, this essay aims to explore the rearrangement of teaching materials to manage intrinsic cognitive load and the optimization of teaching design and instructions to decrease extraneous load. Some insights are offered in terms of effective teaching in ACT reading classroom.
文章引用：阴哲. 基于认知负荷理论的ACT阅读课堂教学设计[J]. 国外英语考试教学与研究, 2022, 4(2): 88-96. https://doi.org/10.12677/OETPR.2022.42010

参考文献

[1] The College Board (2021) SAT Suite of Assessments Annual Report. https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/2022-04/2021-total-group-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report%20%281%29.pdf
[2] ACT, Inc. (2022) ACT National Ranks. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/MultipleChoiceStemComposite.pdf
[3] ACT, Inc. (2020) ACT Profile Report—National. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2020/2020-National-ACT-Profile-Report.pdf
[4] The College Board, ACT, Inc. (2018) Guide to the 2018 ACT/SAT Concordance. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT-SAT-Concordance-Information.pdf
[5] ACT, Inc. (2019) The Official ACT Prep Guide 2019-2020. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, 256-267.
[6] Sweller, J. (2011) Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Cognition in Education, 55, 37-76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
[7] Mestre, L.S. (2012) Pedagogical Considerations for Tutorials. Designing Effective Library Tutorials: A Guide for Accommodating Multiple Learning Styles, 7, 141-169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-688-3.50007-X
[8] Mayer, R.E. (2011) Applying the Science of Learning to Multimedia Instruction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 77-108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00003-X
[9] Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G. and Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998) Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
[10] Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T. and Brünken, R. (2011) Does Cognitive Load Moderate the Seductive Details Effect? A Multimedia Study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.006
[11] Kirschner, P.A. (2002) Cognitive Load Theory: Implications of Cognitive Load Theory on the Design of Learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
[12] Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K. and Catrambone, R. (2004) Designing Instructional Examples to Reduce Intrinsic Cognitive load: Molar versus Modular Presentation of Solution Procedures. Instructional Science, 32, 33-58.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021809.10236.71
[13] Renkl, A., Atkinson, R.K. and Grobe, C.S. (2004) How Fading Worked Solution Steps Works—A Cognitive Load Perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6
[14] Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J. and Lonn, S. (2001) Cognitive Constraints on Multimedia Learning: When Presenting More Material Results in Less Understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
[15] Huang, L.S., Ouyang, J.H. and Jiang, J.Y. (2022) The Relationship of Word Processing with L2 Reading Comprehension and Working Memory: Insights from Eye-Tracking. Learning and Individual Differences, 95, 52-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102143
[16] Tarmizi, R.A. and Sweller, J. (1988) Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424-436.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424
[17] Baker, J.P., Goodboy, A.K., Bowman, N.D. and Wright, A.A. (2018) Does Teaching with PowerPoint Increase Students’ Learning? A Meta-Analysis. Computers & Education, 126, 376-387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.003