Results 1 - 10
of
43
Learners’ choices and beliefs about selftesting
- Memory
, 2009
"... Students have to make scores of practical decisions when they study. We investigated the effectiveness of, and beliefs underlying, one such practical decision: the decision to test oneself while studying. Using a flashcards-like procedure, participants studied lists of word pairs. On the second of t ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 23 (7 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Students have to make scores of practical decisions when they study. We investigated the effectiveness of, and beliefs underlying, one such practical decision: the decision to test oneself while studying. Using a flashcards-like procedure, participants studied lists of word pairs. On the second of two study trials, participants either saw the entire pair again (pair mode) or saw the cue and attempted to generate the target (test mode). Participants were asked either to rate the effectiveness of each study mode (Experiment 1) or to choose between the two modes (Experiment 2). The results demonstrated a mismatch between metacognitive beliefs and study choices: Participants (incorrectly) judged that the pair mode resulted in the most learning, but chose the test mode most frequently. A post-experimental questionnaire suggested that self-testing was motivated by a desire to diagnose learning rather than a desire to improve learning.
Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
, 2008
"... Two experiments examined the testing effect with open-book tests, in which students view notes and textbooks while taking the test, and closed-book tests, in which students take the test without viewing notes or textbooks. Subjects studied prose passages and then restudied or took an open- or closed ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 22 (12 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Two experiments examined the testing effect with open-book tests, in which students view notes and textbooks while taking the test, and closed-book tests, in which students take the test without viewing notes or textbooks. Subjects studied prose passages and then restudied or took an open- or closed-book test. Taking either kind of test, with feedback, enhanced long-term retention relative to conditions in which subjects restudied material or took a test without feedback. Open-book testing led to better initial performance than closed-book testing, but this benefit did not persist and both types of testing produced equivalent retention on a delayed test. Subjects predicted they would recall more after repeated studying, even though testing enhanced long-term retention more than rest-udying. These experiments demonstrate that the testing effect occurs with both open- and closed-book tests, and that subjects fail to predict the effectiveness of testing relative to studying in enhancing later recall. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. A growing body of research has shown that taking a test can do more than simply assess learning: Tests can also enhance learning and improve long-term retention, a phenomenon known as the testing effect (see Carpenter, Pashler, & Vul, 2006; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; McDaniel, Roediger, & McDermott, 2007; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). When
A stability bias in human memory: Overestimating remembering and underestimating learning
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
, 2009
"... The dynamics of human memory are complex and often unintuitive, but certain features—such as the fact that studying results in learning—seem like common knowledge. In 12 experiments, however, partici-pants who were told they would be allowed to study a list of word pairs between 1 and 4 times and th ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 19 (7 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The dynamics of human memory are complex and often unintuitive, but certain features—such as the fact that studying results in learning—seem like common knowledge. In 12 experiments, however, partici-pants who were told they would be allowed to study a list of word pairs between 1 and 4 times and then take a cued-recall test predicted little or no learning across trials, notwithstanding their large increases in actual learning. When queried directly, the participants espoused the belief that studying results in learning, but they showed little evidence of that belief in the actual task. These findings, when combined with A. Koriat, R. A. Bjork, L. Sheffer, and S. K. Bar’s (2004) research on judgments of forgetting, suggest a stability bias in human memory—that is, a tendency to assume that the accessibility of one’s memories will remain relatively stable over time rather than benefiting from future learning or suffering from future forgetting.
Metacognitive judgments and control of study
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
, 2009
"... Recent evidence indicates that people's judgments of their own learning are not epiphenomenal, but rather are causally related to their study behavior. It is argued here that people use these metacognitions in an effort to selectively study material in their own Region of Proximal Learning. The ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 18 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Recent evidence indicates that people's judgments of their own learning are not epiphenomenal, but rather are causally related to their study behavior. It is argued here that people use these metacognitions in an effort to selectively study material in their own Region of Proximal Learning. They attempt to first eliminate materials that are already well learned. Then they progress successively from studying easier to more difficult materials. Successful implementation of this metacognitively guided strategy enhances learning. The necessary components are, first, that the metacognitions be accurate, and second, that the appropriate choices are implemented for study. With these parts in place, the individual is in position to effectively take control of his or her own learning. The study of people's metacognition--their knowledge of their own knowledge--is motivated by the assumption that if metacognition were accurate people could take effective control of their own learning. Because of this assumed link to control of learning, whether metacognitive monitoring is or is not accurate has received much
Simultaneous decisions at study: time allocation, ordering, and spacing. Metacognition and Learning
, 2009
"... Abstract Learners of all ages face complex decisions about how to study effectively. Here we investigated three such decisions made in concert—time allocation, ordering, and spacing. First, college students were presented with, and made judgments of learning about, 16 word-synonym pairs. Then, when ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract Learners of all ages face complex decisions about how to study effectively. Here we investigated three such decisions made in concert—time allocation, ordering, and spacing. First, college students were presented with, and made judgments of learning about, 16 word-synonym pairs. Then, when presented with all 16 pairs, they created their own study schedule by choosing when and how long to study each item. The results indicated that (a) the most study time was allocated to difficult items, (b) relatively easy items tended to be studied first, and (c) participants spaced their study at a rate significantly greater than chance. The spacing data, which are of particular interest, differ from previous findings that have suggested that people, including adults, believe massing is more effective than spacing.
Examining the testing effect with openand closed-book tests. Unpublished manuscript
, 2006
"... SUMMARY Two experiments examined the testing effect with open-book tests, in which students view notes and textbooks while taking the test, and closed-book tests, in which students take the test without viewing notes or textbooks. Subjects studied prose passages and then restudied or took an open-o ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
SUMMARY Two experiments examined the testing effect with open-book tests, in which students view notes and textbooks while taking the test, and closed-book tests, in which students take the test without viewing notes or textbooks. Subjects studied prose passages and then restudied or took an open-or closed-book test. Taking either kind of test, with feedback, enhanced long-term retention relative to conditions in which subjects restudied material or took a test without feedback. Open-book testing led to better initial performance than closed-book testing, but this benefit did not persist and both types of testing produced equivalent retention on a delayed test. Subjects predicted they would recall more after repeated studying, even though testing enhanced long-term retention more than restudying. These experiments demonstrate that the testing effect occurs with both open-and closedbook tests, and that subjects fail to predict the effectiveness of testing relative to studying in enhancing later recall.
Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test expectancy method (Master’s thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Retrieved from http://www.ideals.illinois.edu
- In M. S. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds
, 2010
"... Three experiments demonstrated learners ’ abilities to adaptively and qualitatively accommodate their encoding strategies to the demands of an upcoming test. Stimuli were word pairs. In Experiment 1, test expectancy was induced for either cued recall (of targets given cues) or free recall (of target ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Three experiments demonstrated learners ’ abilities to adaptively and qualitatively accommodate their encoding strategies to the demands of an upcoming test. Stimuli were word pairs. In Experiment 1, test expectancy was induced for either cued recall (of targets given cues) or free recall (of targets only) across 4 study–test cycles of the same test format, followed by a final critical cycle featuring either the expected or the unexpected test format. For final tests of both cued and free recall, participants who had expected that test format outperformed those who had not. This disordinal interaction, supported by recognition and self-report data, demonstrated not mere differences in effort based on anticipated test difficulty, but rather qualitative and appropriate differences in encoding strategies based on expected task demands. Participants also came to appropriately modulate metacognitive monitoring (Experiment 2) and study-time allocation (Experiment 3) across study–test cycles. Item and associative recognition performance, as well as self-report data, revealed shifts in encoding strategies across trials; these results were used to characterize and evaluate the different strategies that participants employed for cued versus free recall and to assess the optimality of participants ’ metacognitive control of encoding strategies. Taken together, these data illustrate a sophisticated form of metacognitive control, in which learners qualitatively shift encoding strategies to match the demands of anticipated tests.
Metacognitive judgments of improvement are uncorrelated with learning rate
- Cognitive Science Society
, 2010
"... Being able to assess one’s own learning rate is essential for optimal learning. Can students accurately assess their learning rate, and is the timing of judgments of improvement important? In this experiment, students were to estimate their learning rate on each trial, either before the trial, or im ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Being able to assess one’s own learning rate is essential for optimal learning. Can students accurately assess their learning rate, and is the timing of judgments of improvement important? In this experiment, students were to estimate their learning rate on each trial, either before the trial, or immediately after. If students typically make these judgments before embarking on further study, accuracy might be greater in the predictive judgment condition. No evidence was found that students could accurately judge improvement, in either condition. Implications for models of self regulated learning are discussed in light of these findings.
Metacognitive control and the spacing effect
, 2010
"... This study investigates whether the use of a spacing strategy absolutely improves final performance, even when the learner had chosen, metacognitively, to mass. After making judgments of learning, adult and child participants chose to mass or space their study of word pairs. However, 1/3 of their ch ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This study investigates whether the use of a spacing strategy absolutely improves final performance, even when the learner had chosen, metacognitively, to mass. After making judgments of learning, adult and child participants chose to mass or space their study of word pairs. However, 1/3 of their choices were dishonored. That is, they were forced to mass after having chosen to space and forced to space after having chosen to mass. Results showed that the spacing effect obtained for both adults and children when choices were honored. However, using a spacing strategy when it was in disagreement with the participant’s own choice, or forced, did not enhance performance for the adults (Experiment 1). And although performance was enhanced for the children (beyond massing strategies), it was not as good as when the spacing decisions were self-chosen (Experiment 2). The data suggest that although spacing is an effective strategy for learning, it is not universal, particularly when the strategy is not chosen by the learner. In short, metacognitive control is often crucial and should be honored.
RETRIEVAL CUE VARIABILITY: WHEN AND WHY ARE TWO MEANINGS BETTER THAN ONE? BY
"... Much is known about the memory benefits of encoding variability, but the effects of retrieval variability (or diversity) remain largely unexplored. The current project investigates the possible benefits and detriments of retrieval cue variability in episodic memory tasks, the processes underlying su ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 2 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Much is known about the memory benefits of encoding variability, but the effects of retrieval variability (or diversity) remain largely unexplored. The current project investigates the possible benefits and detriments of retrieval cue variability in episodic memory tasks, the processes underlying such effects, and how those effects may interact with encoding conditions. Six experiments tested participants ’ recall of balanced homographs when cued with a single meaning or with two meanings. Based on the principle of congruity between encoding and retrieval (e.g., transfer-appropriate processing), I predicted that double-meaning cues would be superior by virtue of providing two routes to retrieval, at least one of which would likely overlap with an encoded single meaning. However, single-meaning cues were in fact superior when target homographs had been studied alone (Experiment 1) or not studied at all (Experiment 2). However, when the cue words were disambiguated by being presented with the targets during study, double-meaning retrieval cues indeed yielded higher recall (Experiments 3 and 6). Experiment 4 showed that, when the procedure allowed it,
