Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance.

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy-cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.

Metacognitive Cues, Working Memory, and Math Anxiety: The Regulated Attention in Mathematical Problem Solving (RAMPS) Framework.

Mathematical problem solving is a process involving metacognitive (e.g., judging progress), cognitive (e.g., working memory), and affective (e.g., math anxiety) factors. Recent research encourages researchers who study math cognition to consider the role that the interaction between metacognition and math anxiety plays in mathematical problem solving. Problem solvers can make many metacognitive judgments during a math problem, ranging from global judgments such as, "Do I care to solve this problem?" to minor cue-based judgments such as, "Is my current strategy successful in making progress toward the correct solution?" Metacognitive monitoring can hinder accurate mathematical problem solving when the monitoring is task-irrelevant; however, task-relevant metacognitive experiences can lead to helpful control decisions in mathematical problem solving such as checking work, considering plausibility of an answer, and considering alternate strategies. Worry and negative thoughts (i.e., math anxiety) can both interfere with the accuracy of metacognitive experiences as cues in mathematical problem solving and lead to avoidance of metacognitive control decisions that could otherwise improve performance. The current paper briefly reviews and incorporates prior literature with current qualitative reports (n = 673) to establish a novel framework of regulated attention in mathematical problem solving (RAMPS).

Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items.

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem - Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja - Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

How do Students Regulate Their Use of Multiple Choice Practice Tests?

Multiple-choice practice tests are beneficial for learning, and students encounter multiple-choice questions regularly. How do students regulate their use of multiple-choice practice testing? And, how effective is students' use of multiple-choice practice testing? In the current experiments, undergraduate participants practiced German-English word pairs. Students started with an initial study trial for each pair. Then, they had the options to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove it from further practice. For comparison to students' use of multiple-choice practice questions, we included a second self-regulated group that had access to cued-recall practice questions. Participants chose to complete multiple-choice questions until they correctly answered each item about one time during practice, similar to students' use of cued-recall questions. We also included experimenter-controlled groups in which participants completed practice tests until they reached a higher number of correct answers during practice. As compared to the experimenter-controlled groups, participants who regulated their use of multiple-choice questions scored lower on final tests but also spent less time practicing items. Thus, when considering final test performance in relation to time spent practicing, students' choices to use multiple-choice practice questions to about one correct answer per item was comparatively effective. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10648-023-09761-1.

What is the impact of interleaving practice and delaying judgments on the accuracy of category-learning judgments?

How could people enhance the accuracy of judgments for predicting math performance on an upcoming test? Research on category-learning judgments shows that their accuracy is poor for predicting performance for mathematics concepts. Based on cue-utilization theory, interleaved practice (which can enhance performance) and delaying judgments after initial study were expected to produce diagnostic cues for predicting performance and in turn improve judgment accuracy. In three experiments, we had participants practice solving problems involving (a) volumes of three-dimensional shapes (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) and (b) fractions (Experiments 1 and 3). Critically, participants either interleaved or blocked their practice of these math materials, and then judgments were made immediately after practice and after a week-long delay when participants returned for the criterion test. Judgment accuracy did not improve for the interleaved practice versus blocked practice groups, but judgment accuracy was greater when the judgments were delayed compared to when they were immediate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Enhancing declarative concept application: The utility of examples as primary targets of learning.

Declarative concepts are abstract concepts denoted by key terms and short definitions that can be applied in a variety of scenarios (e.g., positive reinforcement in psychology; Rawson et al., 2015). One common learning goal for declarative concepts is to instill knowledge that students can use to support the application of content in novel scenarios. Given theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from related literatures, one promising approach for supporting declarative concept application is learning examples. The purpose of the current research was to evaluate the utility of using examples as primary targets of learning for declarative concept application. In two experiments, participants read a textbook passage that included the definition and an example of 10 declarative concepts. Participants then learned the target material by recalling either the definition or the example of each concept. Across both experiments, declarative concept application was greater following practice focused on learning examples versus definitions. Results suggest that using this strategy may be an effective technique for supporting the application of definitions, which are foundational to many introductory courses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

What constrains people's ability to learn about the testing effect through task experience?

What constrains people's ability to learn from experience about the effectiveness of practice testing versus restudying for memory (i.e., the testing effect)? Across two cycles, participants studied word pairs, practiced each pair through either restudying or testing, predicted how many pairs they would recall for each strategy, then completed a critical test on the pairs. During this test, participants either received feedback about the number of pairs they had correctly recalled or made postdictions about their performance for each strategy (i.e., generated their own feedback). During both cycles, participants predicted they would recall an equivalent number of tested and restudied pairs, although they actually recalled more tested pairs. However, when participants experienced a larger testing effect, they estimated recall performance more accurately for each strategy and updated their knowledge about the testing effect. Thus, peoples' ability to learn from experience about the testing effect is primarily constrained not by a failure to initiate the metacognitive processes required to monitor and track recall performance by strategy, but by the metacognitive burden of discriminating between small differences in recall between tested versus restudied material. In summary, people can learn from experience about the testing effect when the metacognitive burden is lifted.

Do Students Effectively Regulate Their Use of Self-Testing as a Function of Item Difficulty?

Retrieval practice is beneficial for both easy-to-learn and difficult-to-learn materials, but scant research has examined students' use of self-testing for items of varying difficulty. In two experiments, we investigated whether students differentially regulate their use of self-testing for easy and difficult items and assessed the effectiveness of students' self-regulated choices. Undergraduate participants learned normatively easy and normatively difficult Lithuanian-English word pair translations. After an initial study trial, participants in the self-regulated learning groups chose whether they wanted to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove an item from further practice. Participants chose to test items repeatedly while learning but dropped both easy and difficult items after reaching a criterion of about one correct recall per item. Consequently, final test performance 2 days later was lower for difficult items versus easy items, and performance was lower in the self-regulated learning group than in an experimenter-controlled comparison group (in Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we tested hypotheses for why participants reached a similar number of correct recalls for both easy and difficult items. Three new groups included different scaffolds aimed at minimizing potential barriers to effective regulation. These scaffolds did not change participants' learning choices, and as a result, performance on difficult items was still lower than on easy items. Importantly, participants planned to continue practicing items beyond one correct recall and believed that an optimal student should practice difficult items more than easy items, but they did not execute this plan during the learning task.

Investigating memory reactivity with a within-participant manipulation of judgments of learning: support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

When learners make judgments of learning (JOLs) for some word pairs but not others, how and why is recall performance affected? Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for a randomly selected half of the pairs. We evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in pair difficulty and to change their learning goal. Because JOLs are manipulated within participants, such a goal change should influence how all (judged or non-judged) pairs are processed on the list, which should lead to no JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity (i.e., higher recall for judged versus non-judged pairs) for related than unrelated pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the two words in a pair, which would be more beneficial for pairs with an a priori relationship. Across experiments, we found positive reactivity for both related and unrelated pairs (albeit to a lesser degree for the latter). We also found no evidence that learners make qualitative changes in their reported strategy use when judging pairs. Making JOLs for some pairs on a list influenced memory performance and the pattern of reactivity provided support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Fostering Metacognition to Support Student Learning and Performance.

Metacognition is awareness and control of thinking for learning. Strong metacognitive skills have the power to impact student learning and performance. While metacognition can develop over time with practice, many students struggle to meaningfully engage in metacognitive processes. In an evidence-based teaching guide associated with this paper (https://lse.ascb.org/evidence-based-teaching-guides/student-metacognition), we outline the reasons metacognition is critical for learning and summarize relevant research on this topic. We focus on three main areas in which faculty can foster students' metacognition: supporting student learning strategies (i.e., study skills), encouraging monitoring and control of learning, and promoting social metacognition during group work. We distill insights from key papers into general recommendations for instruction, as well as a special list of four recommendations that instructors can implement in any course. We encourage both instructors and researchers to target metacognition to help students improve their learning and performance.

Are age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory?

Older adults often demonstrate a monitoring deficit by producing more high-confidence memory errors on recognition memory tests. To eliminate lower memory performance by older adults (OA) as a candidate explanation, we studied how distinctive encoding enhances the retrieval-monitoring accuracy in older adults and younger adults (YA) under different delays (2-day delay for OA, 7-day delay for YA). Individuals viewed items consisting of four randomly selected exemplars (e.g., SALMON, BASS, PERCH, and SHARK) from a taxonomic category (e.g., FISH), one being designated as the to-be-remembered target. Participants were randomly assigned to two encoding conditions: Shared (generate a shared feature of all exemplars, e.g., GILLS) or Distinctive (generate a distinctive feature of the designated target). We collected retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) after a five-alternative forced-choice (5AFC) recognition test, with the lures being either previously presented (old) exemplars or new category exemplars. Recall and recognition memory were better with distinctive encoding, with shared feature generation producing more high-confidence false alarms (HCFAs). Distinctive encoding dramatically reduced HCFAs and improved RCJ resolution. Comparison of OA with 2-day delay YA revealed age differences in HCFA consistent with previous studies. As important, age differences in memory for OA and 7-day delay YA were minimized, eliminating age deficits in HCFAs. Matching OAs to a subset of 7-day delay YAs on recognition memory produced additional evidence favoring the null hypothesis of age-equivalence in HCFAs. The results therefore indicated that age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring in a forced-choice recognition test are an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Are test-expectancy effects better explained by changes in encoding strategies or differential test experience?

Prior research has investigated whether learners spontaneously adapt their encoding strategies in anticipation of particular test formats (i.e., the encoding-strategy adaptation hypothesis; Finley & Benjamin, 2012). However, the strongest evidence supporting this hypothesis is confounded with test experience (as argued by Cho & Neely, 2017). When learners gain equal experience with each test format, do they adapt their encoding strategy use? Across 3 experiments, participants studied lists of cue-target word pairs and after each list completed either a cued-recall test (recall targets given cues) or a free-recall test (recall targets only). Participants received equal experience with each test format. On a final critical test, participants either received a test in a format they expected or one that violated their expectations. On this critical test, participants who received a test they expected outperformed those who did not, and this was true for both cued and free recall. Also, a manipulation of cue-target associative strength had a greater effect on cued-recall tests than free-recall tests (Experiment 1), whereas a manipulation of target-target associative strength had a greater influence on free-recall tests than cued-recall tests (Experiments 2 and 3). These findings, along with divergent patterns of self-reported strategy use for the 2 anticipated test formats, support the encoding-strategy adaptation hypothesis. In particular, learners tend to use more cue-target associative strategies when expecting a cued-recall test, and more target-focused strategies when expecting a free-recall test. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring Metacognitive Knowledge, Monitoring, and Control in the Pharmacy Classroom and Experiential Settings.

Objective. To provide a user's guide on measuring metacognition in authentic contexts so that educators and researchers can explore students' metacognition with an aim towards improving their students' metacognitive processes and achievement. Findings. Metacognition can be measured in a variety of ways depending on whether the interest is knowledge, monitoring, or control. These methods include surveys, assessment of student predictions versus their performance on examinations, or investigating students' decisions during their learning process. Summary. Metacognition refers to people's knowledge about and regulation of their cognitive processes. These aspects of metacognition are important for supporting students' success in academic and experiential settings. In particular, students who recognize successful learning strategies can accurately monitor their own progress and make effective study decisions that are more likely to help them meet their learning goals. Thus, measuring metacognitive knowledge, monitoring, and control can help educators identify struggling students who may benefit from interventions to improve their metacognitive processes.

Why does interleaving improve math learning? The contributions of discriminative contrast and distributed practice.

Interleaved practice involves studying exemplars from different categories in a non-systematic, pseudorandom order under the constraint that no two exemplars from the same category are presented consecutively. Interleaved practice of materials has been shown to enhance test performance compared to blocked practice in which exemplars from the same category are studied together. Why does interleaved practice produce this benefit? We evaluated two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses, the discriminative-contrast hypothesis and the distributed-practice hypothesis, by testing participants' performance on calculating the volume of three-dimensional geometric shapes. In Experiment 1, participants repeatedly practiced calculating the volume of four different-sized shapes according to blocked practice, interleaved practice, or remote-interleaved practice (which involved alternating the practice of volume calculation with non-volume problems, like permutations and fraction addition). Standard interleaving enhanced performance compared to blocked practice but did not produce enhanced performance compared to remote interleaving. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern and extended the results to include a remote-blocked group, which involved blocking volume calculation with non-volume problems. Performance on key measures was better for remote-interleaved groups compared to remote-blocked groups, a finding that supports the distributed-practice hypothesis.

Beliefs about memory decline in aging do not impact judgments of learning (JOLs): A challenge for belief-based explanations of JOLs.

The cue-utilization framework (Koriat, 1997) and the analytic processing theory (Dunlosky, Mueller, & Tauber, 2015) identify people's beliefs about their memory as central to how judgments of learning (JOLs) are made. This assumption is supported by ample evidence. However, researchers have almost exclusively explored the impact of participants' beliefs about the materials or the learning task, and none have evaluated the impact of beliefs about a person on JOLs. Thus, to inform JOL theory, we evaluated the degree to which JOLs are related to the belief that "memory declines with aging in adulthood." In seven experiments, college-aged participants studied words, made JOLs, and took a memory test. Participants made JOLs predicting memory performance for an average younger adult (i.e., 18-21 years old) or for an average older adult (i.e., 65+ years old). Most important, beliefs about aging in adulthood were not always sufficient to produce cue effects on JOLs, which contrasts with expectations from the aforementioned theories. An important challenge for future research will be to discover factors that moderate belief effects. To guide such explorations, we discuss possible explanations for why beliefs about aging would have demonstrated little to no relationship with people's JOLs.

Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement.

Students rely on their notes to memorise and learn critical course content, and recent studies of note-taking state that most students take notes, citing a survey published in 1974. Over the past four decades, classrooms and note-taking technologies have evolved: students can take notes on electronic devices, and some classes are entirely online. Despite these changes, few studies have investigated their impact on note-taking habits. Given that note-taking is critical for student learning, the purpose of the present study was to update the literature on students' general note-taking behaviour and investigate the impact of these newer technological advances on note-taking. We surveyed 577 college students, using questions from prior surveys and new questions relevant to technology. As per prior studies, students still reported taking notes in classrooms, and as important, students reported flexibility in their note-taking by (a) using a notebook or a laptop depending on course demands and (b) often deciding not to take notes in online courses. Thus, students are flexible in their note-taking behaviour, but may not always make the best decisions about how and when to take notes.

An evidence-based approach to learning clinical anatomy: A guide for medical students, educators, and administrators.

The amount of information that medical students learn is voluminous and those who do not use evidence-based learning strategies may struggle. Research from cognitive and educational psychology provides a blueprint on how best to learn science subjects, including clinical anatomy. Students should aim for high-cognitive learning levels as defined in the SOLO taxonomy. Using a real-world example from a modern clinical anatomy textbook, we describe how to learn information using strategies that have been experimentally validated as effective. Students should avoid highlighting and rereading text because they do not result in robust learning as defined in the SOLO taxonomy. We recommend that students use (1) practice testing, (2) distributed practice, and (3) successive relearning. Practice testing refers to nonsummative assessments that contain questions used to facilitate retrieval (e.g., flashcards and practice questions). Practice questions can be fill-in, short-answer, and multiple-choice types, and students should receive explanatory feedback. Distributed practice, the technique of distributing learning of the same content within a single study session or across sessions, has been found to facilitate long-term retention. Finally, successive relearning combines both practice testing and distributed practice. For this strategy, students use practice questions to continue learning until they can answer all of the practice questions correctly. Students who continuously use practice testing, distributed practice, and successive relearning will become more efficient and effective learners. Our hope is that the real-world clinical anatomy example presented in this article makes it easier for students to implement these evidence-based strategies and ultimately improve their learning. Clin. Anat., 2018. © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Anatomy published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Clinical Anatomists.

The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance: Positive, negative, or both?

A common measure of memory monitoring--judgments of learning (JOLs)--has recently been shown to have reactive effects on learning. When participants study a list of related and unrelated word pairs, they recall more related than unrelated pairs. This relatedness effect is larger when people make JOLs than when they do not make them. Evidence is mixed concerning whether this increased relatedness effect arises because JOLs help memory for related pairs, hurt it for unrelated pairs, or do both. In three experiments, we investigated (1) the nature of the increased relatedness effect (i.e., does it arise from positive reactivity for related pairs, negative reactivity for unrelated pairs, or both?) and (2) the mechanisms underlying the effect. Participants studied cue-target word pairs and either did (or did not) make immediate JOLs and then completed a cued-recall test. When participants studied a mixed list consisting of related and unrelated pairs, the increased relatedness effect was largely driven by positive reactivity. When participants studied pure lists consisting solely of related or unrelated word pairs (Experiment 2 only), the increased relatedness effect was minimized. These and other findings suggest that making JOLs helps learning more than hurts it, and that this reactive effect partly occurs because making JOLs changes people's learning goals.

Investigating and explaining the effects of successive relearning on long-term retention.

Research on techniques for enhancing long-term retention has focused almost exclusively on single-session learning conditions. However, even the most potent initial learning manipulations typically do not yield retention levels sufficient for successful performance in many real-world contexts. In contrast, successive relearning (i.e., practicing to some level of mastery in multiple learning sessions) is a promising technique for enhancing long-term retention, but surprisingly few studies have been conducted to date. In two experiments, the advantage of successive relearning over single-session learning (i.e., relearning potency) was substantial, ds = 1.52 to 4.19. Additionally, the effects of initial lag on retention were sizable prior to relearning (ds = 1.07 to 1.87) but attenuated after relearning (ds = -.20 to .38; the extent to which relearning attenuates the effects of initial learning conditions is referred to as relearning override). To evaluate a possible explanation of these effects, we formally tested the relearning attenuatesdecay (RAD) model. The RAD model accurately accounted for relearning potency and relearning override effects (and several other secondary effects). We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of these findings and advocate that successive relearning is an important next frontier for educationally relevant memory research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Does mediator use contribute to the spacing effect for cued recall? Critical tests of the mediator hypothesis.

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some - but not all of - the spacing effect on final performance.