相同知识背景下技能之间迁移机制的研究

Since the middle of 1980's, the mechanisms of transfer of training between cognitive subskills rest on the same body of declarative knowledge has been highly concerned. The dominant theory is theory of common element (Singley & Anderson, 1989) which predict that there will be little or no transfer between subskills within the same domain when knowledge is used in different ways, even though the subskills might rest on a common body of declarative knowledge. This idea is termed as "principle of use specificity of knowledge" (Anderson, 1987). Although this principle has gained some empirical evidence from different domains such as elementary geometry (Neves & Anderson, 1981) and computer programming (McKendree & Anderson, 1987), it is challenged by some research (Pennington et al., 1991; 1995) in which substantially larger amounts of transfer of training was found between substills that rest on a shared declarative knowledge but share little procedures (production rules). Pennington et al. (1995) provided evidence that this larger amounts of transfer are due to the elaboration of declarative knowledge. Our research provide a test of these two different explanation, by considering transfer between two subskills within the domain of elementary geometry and elementary algebra respectively, and the inference of learning method ("learning from examples" and "learning from declarative-text") and subject ability (high, middle, low) on the amounts of transfer. Within the domain of elementary geometry, the two subskills of generating proofs" (GP) and "explaining proofs" (EP) which are rest on the declarative knowledge of "theorems on the characters of parallelogram" share little procedures. Within the domain of elementary algebra, the two subskills of "calculation" (C) and "simplification" (S) which are rest on the declarative knowledge of "multiplication of radical" share some more procedures. The results demonstrate that: 1. Within the domain of elementary geometry, although little transfer was found between the two subskills of GP and EP within the total subjects, different results occurred when considering the factor of subject's ability. Within the high level subjects, significant positive transfer was found from EP to GP, while little transfer was found on the opposite direction (i. e. from GP to EP). Within the low level subjects, significant positive transfer was found from EP to GP, while significant negative transfer was found on the opposite direction. For the middle level subject, little transfer was found between the two subskills. 2. Within the domain of elementary algebra, significant positive transfer was found from S to C, while significant negative transfer was found on the opposite direction (i. e. from C to S), when considering the total subjects. The same pattern of transfer occurred within the middle level subjects and low level subject. Within the high level subjects, no transfer was found between the two subskills. 3. Within theses two domains, different learning methods yield little influence on transfer of training between subskills. Apparently, these results can not be attributed to either common procedures or elaboration of declarative knowledge. A kind of synthetic inspection is essential to construct a reasonable explanation of these results which should take into account the following three elements: (1) relations between the procedures of subskills; (2) elaboration of declarative knowledge; (3) elaboration of procedural knowledge. 排Excluding the factor of subject, transfer of training between subskills can be predicted and explained by analyzing the relations between the procedures of two subskills. However, when considering some certain subjects, the explanation of transfer of training between subskills must include subjects' elaboration of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, especially the influence of the elaboration on performing the other subskill. The fact that different learning methods yield little influence on transfer of training between subskills can be explained by the fact that these two methods did not effect the level of declarative knowledge. Protocol analysis provided evidence to support these hypothesis. From this research, we conclude that in order to expound the mechanisms of transfer of training between cognitive subskills rest on the same body of declarative knowledge, three elements must be considered synthetically which include: (1) relations between the procedures of subskills; (2) elaboration of declarative knowledge; (3) elaboration of procedural knowledge.

Different mechanisms for the formation of acetaldehyde and ethanol on the Rh-based catalysts

Different mechanisms for the formation of acetaldehyde and ethanol on the Rh-based catalysts were investigated by the TPR (temperature programmed reaction) method, and the active sites were studied by CO-TPD, TPSR (temperature programmed surface reaction of preadsorbed CO by H-2) and XPS techniques. The TPR results indicated that ethanol and acetaldehyde might be formed through different intermediates, whereas ethanol and methanol might result from the same intermediate. Results of CO-TPD, TPSR, and XPS showed that on the Rh-based catalyst, the structure of the active sites for the formation of C-2-oxygenates is ((RhxRhy+)-Rh-0)-O-Mn+ (M=Mn or Zr, x>>y, 2 less than or equal ton less than or equal to4). The tilt-adsorbed CO species is the main precursor for CO dissociation and the precursor for the formation of ethanol and methanol. Most of the linear and geminal adsorbed CO species desorbed below 500 K. Based on the suggested model of the active sites, detailed mechanisms for the formation of acetaldehyde and ethanol are proposed. Ethanol is formed by direct hydrogenation of the tilt-adsorbed CO molecules, followed by CH2 insertion into the surface CH2-O species and the succeeding hydrogenation step. Acetaldehyde is formed through CO insertion into the surface CH3-Rh species followed by hydrogenation, and the role of the promoters was to stabilize the intermediate of the surface acetyl species. (C) 2000 Academic Press.