Teaching older adults to use retrieval practice improves their self-regulated learning.

Retrieval practice can reduce associative memory deficits for older adults but they underutilize this potent learning tool during self-regulated learning. The current experiment investigated whether teaching older adults to use retrieval practice more can improve their self-regulated learning. Younger and older adults made decisions about when to study, how often to engage in retrieval practice, and when to stop learning a list of medication-side effect pairs. Some younger and older adults received instructions before learning that emphasized the mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice over restudying material and described how to schedule retrieval practice to learn to a goal criterion level. This minimal intervention was effective for improving both younger and older adults' associative memory. These data indicate that a simple strategy for improving older adults self-regulated learning is to provide them with instructions that teach them how to use criterion learning to schedule their retrieval practice for to-be learned material.

English linguistic neo-imperialism in the era of globalization: A conceptual viewpoint.

As Phillipson warned, "[l]inguistic imperialism [is] alive and kicking" and has become even more subtle in an era when English has become the global lingua franca. With this, this conceptual paper aims to propose features of linguistic neo-imperialism by describing how English has continuously spread and retained its power in various domains particularly in periphery countries, whether ex-colonies or non-colonies. Broadly, we highlight these features from the aspects of communication, business, academia, and education. The features of English linguistic neo-imperialism are interrelated and interactive in these fields, reinforcing the current dominant position of English. We then proceed with drawing implications for the local languages, particularly in their preservation and use alongside English and other dominant lingua francas.

Emerging Trends in Research on Self-Regulated Learning and Implications for Education: An Introduction to the Special Issue.

Students in higher education face a multitude of challenges when gaining and refining their knowledge [...].

Do Domain Knowledge and Retrieval Practice Predict Students' Study Order Decisions?

Learning complex concepts is necessary for student success, but it is often challenging. Learning such concepts can be influenced by students' study order choices during learning to switch to a new category (interleaved study order) or stay within the same category (blocked study order). Students often prefer stay decisions during learning and make relatively few switch decisions; however, an open question is whether students' switch decisions are related to their level of prior knowledge in the domain and the learning strategy they use (retrieval practice versus study). To examine these relationships, we recruited undergraduate students from an introductory geology course. Prior to the course modules on rock classification, students self-rated their knowledge, took a prior knowledge test, classified rock exemplars by completing study or retrieval practice trials, and made study order choices. Students then completed assignments and attended lectures in their geology course on igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. Next, students self-rated their knowledge, took a new prior knowledge test, completed study or retrieval practice trials, made study order decisions, took final classification tests, and self-reported beliefs about study order choices. Even though students' knowledge increased after course modules on rock identification, and most students believed that domain knowledge impacts study decisions, prior knowledge did not predict students' switch decisions. In contrast, students who completed retrieval practice trials made substantially more switch decisions (i.e., interleaved study) than did students who completed study trials.

Are there Sex Differences in Confidence and Metacognitive Monitoring Accuracy for Everyday, Academic, and Psychometrically Measured Spatial Ability?

The current study evaluated sex differences in (1) self-perceptions of everyday and academic spatial ability, and (2) metacognitive monitoring accuracy for measures of spatial visualization and spatial orientation. Undergraduate students completed the Paper Folding Test, Spatial Relations Test, and the Revised Purdue Spatial Visualization Test while making confidence judgments (CJs) for each trial. They also made global estimates of performance and rated their ability to perform several everyday and academic spatial scenarios. Across multiple spatial measures, female students displayed lower confidence in their item-level monitoring and global assessments of performance than did male students, even when no actual differences in spatial performance occurred. Women were also less confident in their self-assessments of their visualspatial ability for scientific domains than were men. However, the absolute and relative accuracy of CJs did not differ as a function of sex suggesting that women can monitor their spatial performance as well as men.

Age-related similarities and differences in monitoring spatial cognition.

Spatial cognitive performance is impaired in later adulthood but it is unclear whether the metacognitive processes involved in monitoring spatial cognitive performance are also compromised. Inaccurate monitoring could affect whether people choose to engage in tasks that require spatial thinking and also the strategies they use in spatial domains such as navigation. The current experiment examined potential age differences in monitoring spatial cognitive performance in a variety of spatial domains including visual-spatial working memory, spatial orientation, spatial visualization, navigation, and place learning. Younger and older adults completed a 2D mental rotation test, 3D mental rotation test, paper folding test, spatial memory span test, two virtual navigation tasks, and a cognitive mapping test. Participants also made metacognitive judgments of performance (confidence judgments, judgments of learning, or navigation time estimates) on each trial for all spatial tasks. Preference for allocentric or egocentric navigation strategies was also measured. Overall, performance was poorer and confidence in performance was lower for older adults than younger adults. In most spatial domains, the absolute and relative accuracy of metacognitive judgments was equivalent for both age groups. However, age differences in monitoring accuracy (specifically relative accuracy) emerged in spatial tasks involving navigation. Confidence in navigating for a target location also mediated age differences in allocentric navigation strategy use. These findings suggest that with the possible exception of navigation monitoring, spatial cognition may be spared from age-related decline even though spatial cognition itself is impaired in older age.

Does the Cognitive Reflection Test actually capture heuristic versus analytic reasoning styles in older adults?

Background/Study Context: This study evaluated adult age differences in the original three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42) and an expanded seven-item version of that test (Toplak et al., 2013, Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 147-168). The CRT is a numerical problem-solving test thought to capture a disposition towards either rapid, intuition-based problem solving (Type I reasoning) or a more thoughtful, analytical problem-solving approach (Type II reasoning). Test items are designed to induce heuristically guided errors that can be avoided if using an appropriate numerical representation of the test problems. METHODS: We evaluated differences between young adults and old adults in CRT performance and correlates of CRT performance. Older adults (ages 60 to 80) were paid volunteers who participated in experiments assessing age differences in self-regulated learning. Young adults (ages 17 to 35) were students participating for pay as part of a project assessing measures of critical thinking skills or as a young comparison group in the self-regulated learning study. RESULTS: There were age differences in the number of CRT correct responses in two independent samples. Results with the original three-item CRT found older adults to have a greater relative proportion of errors based on providing the intuitive lure. However, younger adults actually had a greater proportion of intuitive errors on the long version of the CRT, relative to older adults. Item analysis indicated a much lower internal consistency of CRT items for older adults. CONCLUSION: These outcomes do not offer full support for the argument that older adults are higher in the use of a "Type I" cognitive style. The evidence was also consistent with an alternative hypothesis that age differences were due to lower levels of numeracy in the older samples. Alternative process-oriented evaluations of how older adults solve CRT items will probably be needed to determine conditions under which older adults manifest an increase in the Type I dispositional tendency to opt for superficial, heuristically guided problem representations in numerical problem-solving tasks.

Improving self-regulated learning with a retrieval practice intervention.

Repeated retrieval practice is a powerful learning tool for promoting long-term retention, but students use this tool ineffectively when regulating their learning. The current experiments evaluated the efficacy of a minimal intervention aimed at improving students' self-regulated use of repeated retrieval practice. Across 2 experiments, students made decisions about when to study, engage in retrieval practice, or stop learning a set of foreign language word pairs. Some students received direct instruction about how to use repeated retrieval practice. These instructions emphasized the mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice over a less effective strategy (restudying) and told students how to use repeated retrieval practice to maximize their performance-specifically, that they should recall a translation correctly 3 times during learning. This minimal intervention promoted more effective self-regulated use of retrieval practice and better retention of the translations compared to a control group that received no instruction. Students who experienced this intervention also showed potential for long-term changes in self-regulated learning: They spontaneously used repeated retrieval practice 1 week later to learn new materials. These results provide a promising first step for developing guidelines for teaching students how to regulate their learning more effectively using repeated retrieval practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

Children's agenda-based regulation: The effects of prior performance and reward on elementary school children's study choices.

The main goal of the current experiments was to examine the influence of monitoring and reward on elementary school children's study decisions. First and third graders studied names for 10 animals (e.g., "The elephant's name is Suzy") and then were given a cued recall test on which they were shown the animal and needed to recall the name. Next, they were given an opportunity to restudy the animal-name pairs, and some of these pairs were slated to earn a reward (a sticker) if correctly recalled. In Experiment 1, both groups of children were (a) more likely to restudy previously unrecalled pairs than previously recalled pairs and (b) more likely to restudy pairs that were slated to receive a reward. In Experiment 2, we further explored children's use of reward using a forced-choice selection task. Namely, during selection, pairs were presented in dyads where one pair was slated for a reward and the other pair was not, and the children could choose only one pair from each dyad for restudy. Both first and third graders chose to restudy pairs slated for a reward. Thus, even young elementary school children consider both rewards and performance monitoring when regulating their learning.

Age-related associative memory deficits in value-based remembering: The contribution of agenda-based regulation and strategy use.

Value-based remembering in free-recall tasks may be spared from the typical age-related cognitive decline observed for episodic memory. However, it is unclear whether value-based remembering for associative information is also spared from age-related cognitive decline. The current experiments evaluated the contribution of agenda-based based regulation and strategy use during study to age differences and similarities in value-based remembering of associative information. Participants studied word pairs (Experiments 1-2) or single words (Experiment 2) slated with different point values by moving a mouse controlled cursor to different spatial locations to reveal either items for study or the point value associated with remembering each item. Some participants also provided strategy reports for each item. Younger and older adults allocated greater time to studying high- than low-valued information, reported using normatively effective encoding strategies to learn high-valued pairs, and avoided study of low-valued pairs. As a consequence, both age groups selectively remembered more high- than low-valued items. Despite nearly identical regulatory behavior, an associative memory deficit for older adults was present for high-valued pairs. Age differences in value-based remembering did not occur when the materials were word lists. Fluid intelligence also moderated the effectiveness of older adults' strategy use for high-valued pairs (Experiment 2). These results suggest that age differences in associative value-based remembering may be due to some older adults' gleaning less benefit from using normatively effective encoding strategies rather than age differences in metacognitive self-regulation per se.

Test Framing Generates a Stability Bias for Predictions of Learning by Causing People to Discount their Learning Beliefs.

People estimate minimal changes in learning when making predictions of learning (POLs) for future study opportunities despite later showing increased performance and an awareness of that increase (Kornell & Bjork, 2009). This phenomenon is conceptualized as a stability bias in judgments about learning. We investigated the malleability of this effect, and whether it reflected people's underlying beliefs about learning. We manipulated prediction framing to emphasize the role of testing vs. studying on memory and directly measured beliefs about multi-trial study effects on learning by having participants construct predicted learning curves before and after the experiment. Mean POLs were more sensitive to the number of study-test opportunities when performance was framed in terms of study benefits rather than testing benefits and POLs reflected pre-existing beliefs about learning. The stability bias is partially due to framing and reflects discounted beliefs about learning benefits rather than inherent belief in the stability of performance.

People use the memory for past-test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning.

When people estimate their memory for to-be-learned material over multiple study-test trials, they tend to base their judgments of learning (JOLs) on their test performance for those materials on the previous trial. Their use of this information-known as the memory for past-test (MPT) heuristic-is believed to be responsible for improvements in the relative accuracy (resolution) of people's JOLs across learning trials. Although participants seem to use past-test information as a major basis for their JOLs, little is known about how learners translate this information into a judgment of learning. Toward this end, in two experiments, we examined whether participants factored past-test performance into their JOLs in either an explicit, theory-based way or an implicit way. To do so, we had one group of participants (learners) study paired associates, make JOLs, and take a test on two study-test trials. Other participants (observers) viewed learners' protocols and made JOLs for the learners. Presumably, observers could only use theory-based information to make JOLs for the learners, which allowed us to estimate the contribution of explicit and implicit information to learners' JOLs. Our analyses suggest that all participants factored simple past-test performance into their JOLs in an explicit, theory-based way but that this information made limited contributions to improvements in relative accuracy across trials. In contrast, learners also used other privileged, implicit information about their learning to inform their judgments (that observers had no access to) that allowed them to achieve further improvements in relative accuracy across trials.

The ties to unbind: age-related differences in feature (un)binding in working memory for emotional faces.

In the present study, we investigated age-related differences in the processing of emotional stimuli. Specifically, we were interested in whether older adults would show deficits in unbinding emotional expression (i.e., either no emotion, happiness, anger, or disgust) from bound stimuli (i.e., photographs of faces expressing these emotions), as a hyper-binding account of age-related differences in working memory would predict. Younger and older adults completed different N-Back tasks (side-by-side 0-Back, 1-Back, 2-Back) under three conditions: match/mismatch judgments based on either the identity of the face (identity condition), the face's emotional expression (expression condition), or both identity and expression of the face (both condition). The two age groups performed more slowly and with lower accuracy in the expression condition than in the both condition, indicating the presence of an unbinding process. This unbinding effect was more pronounced in older adults than in younger adults, but only in the 2-Back task. Thus, older adults seemed to have a specific deficit in unbinding in working memory. Additionally, no age-related differences were found in accuracy in the 0-Back task, but such differences emerged in the 1-Back task, and were further magnified in the 2-Back task, indicating independent age-related differences in attention/STM and working memory. Pupil dilation data confirmed that the attention/STM version of the task (1-Back) is more effortful for older adults than younger adults.

Eyes wide open: enhanced pupil dilation when selectively studying important information.

Remembering important information is imperative for efficient memory performance, but it is unclear how we encode important information. The current experiment evaluated two non-exclusive hypotheses for how learners selectively encode important information at the expense of less important information (differential resource allocation and information reduction). To evaluate these hypotheses, we measured changes in learners' pupil diameter and fixation durations while participants performed a selectivity task that involved studying lists consisting of words associated with different point values. Participants were instructed to maximize their score on a free recall task that they completed after studying each list. Participants' pupils dilated more when studying high-valued than low-valued words, and these changes were associated with better memory for high-valued words. However, participants fixated equally on words regardless of their value, which is inconsistent with the information reduction hypothesis. Participants also increased their memory selectivity across lists, but changes in pupil diameter and differences in fixations could not account for this increased selectivity. The results suggest that learners allocate attention differently to items as a function of their value, and that multiple processes and operations contribute to value-directed remembering.

Contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding to decisions to mass or space study.

How do learners decide whether to mass or space an item during study? Results from Son (2004) indicate that these decisions are influenced by the degree to which an item is judged to be encoded sufficiently during an initial study episode, whereas others (Toppino, Cohen, Davis, & Moors, 2009) have proposed that degraded perceptual processing contributed to participants' decisions to mass or space study. To reconcile these conflicting conclusions, the current experiments used eye tracking technology to evaluate the contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding on learners' study decisions. Participants studied synonym pairs from the graduate record exam (GRE) that varied in item difficulty for 1 s (Experiment 1) or 5 s (Experiment 2) each while their eye movements were recorded. Participants then decided whether to mass, space, or drop each pair in future study. For pairs that were never fixated, and hence not perceived, participants overwhelmingly chose to mass their study, presumably so that they could read the target. For pairs that were processed sufficiently to be perceived, preference for massing and spacing pairs increased with item difficulty (i.e., both increased as pairs became less likely to be fully encoded). Taken together, these data demonstrate a contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding for learners' decisions to mass (or space) their study.

Learning what to learn: the effects of task experience on strategy shifts in the allocation of study time.

Learners typically allocate more resources to learning items that are higher in value than they do to items lower in value. For instance, when items vary in point value for learning, participants allocate more study time to the higher point items than they do to the lower point items. The current experiments extend this research to a context where the value of items is not explicitly labeled by evaluating whether learners' study decisions are sensitive to statistical regularities in the testing environment that signal which items are valuable to learn. In 4 experiments, participants studied English-English and Swahili-English paired associates across 4 study-test trials. On each trial, they were tested on only 1 type of item (e.g., only Swahili-English pairs), and, hence, only 1 type of item was valuable for performance. Some participants were cued to which information was valuable, and other participants had to learn from task experience. Experiment 2 examined the effect of performance incentives on study decisions, and Experiment 3 examined how the organization of the task environment influences learners' decisions. Finally, Experiment 4 examined the role of working memory span, fluid intelligence, and need for cognition on decisions. Findings indicated that some people can learn from task experience which items are important to study. However, many learners fail to do so (in particular, learners with low working memory spans); as a consequence, they dysregulate their study by allocating time to items that are not valuable to performance.

When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study?

Learners presumably attempt to allocate their study time to maximize reward, yet in some contexts, their study choices are driven by reading biases that would not maximize reward. For instance, when presented with items in a horizontal array that are worth different values if correctly recalled, learners will often first select the leftmost item (i.e., a reading bias), even when it is associated with the lowest value. In four experiments, we investigated the degrees to which various factors cause learners to shift to agenda-based regulation. On each trial, participants were presented with three cues and a point value (1, 3, or 5) for each. The participants could select any cue for study (in which case, its target would be presented) in any order. In Experiment 1, participants either selected items for study under time pressure or were given unlimited time to select items. Not limiting selection time increased the likelihood that higher-valued items would be prioritized for study, but reading biases still influenced item selection. In Experiment 2, participants could select only one item per trial, and higher-valued items were prioritized even more for study, but not exclusively so. In Experiments 3 and 4, we ruled out a lack of motivation and inaccurate task beliefs as explanations for why participants would sometimes choose lower-valued items. The results demonstrate the influence of a pervasive reading bias on learners' item selections, but as importantly, they show that a shift toward agenda use occurs when habitual responding cannot maximize reward.

Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time.

Item order can bias learners' study decisions and undermine the use of more effective allocation strategies, such as allocating study time to items in one's region of proximal learning. In two experiments, we evaluated whether the influence of item order on study decisions reflects habitual responding based on a reading bias. We manipulated the order in which relatively easy, moderately difficult, and difficult items were presented from left to right on a computer screen and examined selection preference as a function of item order and item difficulty. Experiment 1a was conducted with native Arabic readers and in Arabic, and Experiment 1b was conducted with native English readers and in English. Students from both cultures prioritized items for study in the reading order of their native language: Arabic readers selected items for study in a right-to-left fashion, whereas English readers largely selected items from left to right. In Experiment 2, native English readers completed the same task as participants in Experiment 1b, but for some participants, lines of text were rotated upside down to encourage them to read from right to left. Participants who read upside-down text were more likely to first select items on the right side of an array than were participants who studied right-side-up text. These results indicate that reading habits can bias learners' study decisions and can undermine agenda-based regulation.

The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study.

Research on study-time allocation has largely focused on agenda-based regulation, such as whether learners select items for study that are in their region of proximal learning. In 4 experiments, the authors evaluated the contribution of habitual responding to study-time allocation (e.g., reading from left to right). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants selected items for study from a 3-item array. In Experiment 1, pairs were ordered by learning ease from left to right or in the reverse order. In Experiment 2, pairs were in a column with the easiest item either in the top or bottom position. Participants more likely chose to study the easiest item first when it was presented in the prominent position of an array, but when the difficult item was in the prominent position, it was more often chosen first for study. In Experiment 3, a 3 × 3 array was used. In 1 group, the 3 easy items were in the left column and the 3 difficult ones were in the right column; in another group, these columns were reversed. Participants largely chose items in a top-down or left-to-right order. In Experiment 4, items were presented sequentially for item selection, with either the difficult items presented first (followed by progressively easier items) or in the reverse order. Participants could choose half the items for restudy, and they were more likely to choose items presented earlier in the list, regardless of presentation order. These and other outcomes indicate that both agenda-based regulation (in terms of using the region of proximal learning) and habitual responding contribute to people's selection of items for study.

The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting.

When people judge their learning of items across study-test trials, their accuracy in discriminating between learned and unlearned items improves on the second trial. We examined the source of this improvement by estimating the contribution of three factors-memory for past test performance (MPT), new learning, and forgetting-to accuracy on trial 2. In Experiment 1, during an initial trial, participants studied paired associates, made a judgment of learning (JOL) for each one, and were tested. During the second trial, we manipulated two variables: when the JOL was made (either immediately before or after studying an item) and whether participants were told the outcome of the initial recall attempt on trial 1. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was used with a 1-week retention interval between study and test on trial 2. In both experiments, JOL resolution was higher on trial 2 than on trial 1. Fine-grained analyses of JOL magnitude and decomposition of resolution supported several conclusions. First, MPT contributed the most to boosts in JOL magnitude and improvements in resolution across trials. Second, JOLs and subsequent resolution were sensitive to new learning and forgetting, but only when participants' judgments were made after study. Thus, JOLs appear to integrate information from multiple factors, and these factors jointly contribute to JOL resolution.