Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test.

JOL reactivity refers to the finding that making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying material influences later memory for that material. Findings of JOL reactivity have been mixed, with some experiments reporting changes to memory when participants make JOLs and others finding no influence of JOLs. Soderstrom, Clark, Halamish, and Bjork (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553-558, 2015) proposed that JOL reactivity will only occur if the final test is sensitive to the same cues used to inform JOLs. The current study evaluated this account by manipulating the type of final test. In four experiments, participants studied mixed lists of related and unrelated word pairs and either made JOLs or did not make JOLs. Making JOLs generally enhanced memory for related word pairs when a cued-recall test was administered. However, during free recall, JOLs had no influence on memory for target information, likely because cue-target associations (which are used to inform JOLs) are less beneficial in the absence of cues. JOLs improved item recognition memory for words that were studied in related pairs, although the effect was small. Collectively, data from a meta-analysis of these experiments indicate that JOL reactivity depends on the type of final test, with reactivity most likely to occur when the final test is sensitive to the same cues used to inform JOLs. Future work should continue examining different tests and study materials in order to develop a comprehensive theory of JOL reactivity.

Retrieval activates related words more than presentation.

Retrieving information enhances learning more than restudying. One explanation of this effect is based on the role of mediators (e.g., sand-castle can be mediated by beach). Retrieval is hypothesised to activate mediators more than restudying, but existing tests of this hypothesis have had mixed results [Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1547-1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140 ; Lehman, M., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Elaborative retrieval: Do semantic mediators improve memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1573-1591. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000267 ]. The present experiments explored an explanation of the conflicting results, testing whether mediator activation during a retrieval attempt depends on the accessibility of the target information. A target was considered less versus more accessible when fewer versus more cues were given during retrieval practice (Experiments 1 and 2), when the target had been studied once versus three times initially (Experiment 3), or when the target could not be recalled versus could be recalled during retrieval practice (Experiments 1-3). A mini meta-analysis of all three experiments revealed a small effect such that retrieval activated mediators more than presentation, but mediator activation was not reliably related to target accessibility. Thus, retrieval may enhance learning by activating mediators, in part, but these results suggest the role of other processes, too.

Performance bias: Why judgments of learning are not affected by learning.

Past research has shown a performance bias: People expect their future performance level on a task to match their current performance level, even when there are good reasons to expect future performance to differ from current performance. One explanation of this bias is that judgments are controlled by what learners can observe, and while current performance is usually observable, changes in performance (i.e., learning or forgetting) are not. This explanation makes a prediction that we tested here: If learning becomes observable, it should begin to affect judgments. In three experiments, after practicing a skill, participants estimated how they performed in the past and how they expected to perform in the future. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants knew they had been improving, as shown by their responses, yet they did not predict that they would improve in the future. This finding was particularly striking because (a) they did improve in the future and (b) as Experiment 3 showed, they did hold the conscious belief that past improvement predicted future improvement. In short, when learning and performance are both observable, judgments of learning seem to be guided by performance and not learning.

Retrieval attempts enhance learning regardless of time spent trying to retrieve.

Attempting to retrieve information from memory is an engaging cognitive activity. We predicted that people would learn more when they had spent more time attempting to retrieve. In experiments 1a and 1b, participants were shown trivia questions for 0, 5, 10, or 30 seconds and then the answer was revealed. They took a final test immediately or after 48 hours. Retrieval enhanced learning, but the length of the retrieval attempt had no effect (i.e., final test performance was equivalent in the 5-, 10-, and 30-second conditions and worse in the 0-second condition). During the initial retrieval attempt, more time did increase recall, suggesting that participants continued to engage in productive retrieval activities when given more time. Showing the answer for longer (7 versus 2 seconds) increased learning in Experiments 2a and 2b. Experiment 3 examined the effect of retrieval success and Experiment 4 replicated the results using different materials. These results have direct implications for current theories of retrieval.

Delayed Metacomprehension Judgments Do Not Directly Improve Learning from Texts.

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) after studying can directly improve learning. This JOL reactivity has been shown for simple materials but has scarcely been investigated with educationally relevant materials such as expository texts. The few existing studies have not yet reported any consistent gains in text comprehension due to providing JOLs. In the present study, we hypothesized that increasing the chances of covert retrieval attempts when making JOLs after each of five to-be-studied text passages would produce comprehension benefits at 1 week compared to restudy. In a between-subjects design, we manipulated both whether participants (N = 210) were instructed to covertly retrieve the texts, and whether they made delayed target-absent JOLs. The results indicated that delayed, target-absent JOLs did not improve text comprehension after 1 week, regardless of whether prior instructions to engage in covert retrieval were provided. Based on the two-stage model of JOLs, we reasoned that participants' retrieval attempts during metacomprehension judgments were either insufficient (i.e., due to a quick familiarity assessment) or were ineffective (e.g., due to low retrieval success).

Are you sure? Examining the potential benefits of truth-checking as a learning activity.

Learners may be uncertain about whether encountered information is true. Uncertainty may encourage people to critically assess information's accuracy, serving as a kind of desirable difficulty that benefits learning. Uncertainty may also have negative effects, however, leading people to mistrust true information or to later misremember false information as true. In three experiments, participants read history statements. In one condition, all statements were true, and the participants knew it. In the other two conditions, some statements were true, and others were false. Participants were either told the statements' accuracy or they guessed the statements' accuracy prior to feedback, a manipulation we refer to as truth-checking. All participants were then tested on recalling the true information and on recognising true versus false statements. We observed a significant benefit of truth-checking in one of the three experiments, suggesting that truth-checking may have some potential to enhance learning, perhaps by inducing people to encode to-be-learned information more deeply than they would otherwise. Even so, the benefit may come at a cost-truth-checking took significantly longer than study alone, and it led to a greater likelihood of thinking false information was true, suggesting costs of truth-checking may tend to outweigh benefits.

Testing effects for self-generated versus experimenter-provided questions.

Given the finding that retrieval practice improves memory, it is frequently suggested that students test themselves while studying. This study examined whether participants benefit from testing if they create and use their own test questions. In Experiment 1, participants read passages, generated questions about the passages, and then either answered their questions as they created them (the procedure used in previous studies) or after a delay. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants either generated questions and answered them after a delay (i.e., self-testing), answered experimenter-provided questions, or reread the passages before taking a final test administered shortly after learning or following a 2-day delay. The experiments found no benefits of answering one's own questions after a delay. In fact, those who self-tested tended to have worse performance on a final assessment of learning than the other learning conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested that participants' questions often did not target material that was on the later criterion test, which may explain why self-testing was not beneficial. The present study suggests that testing may not benefit learning if students create their own test questions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Study strategies and "study drugs": investigating the relationship between college students' study behaviors and prescription stimulant misuse.

ObjectiveThe current study examined the regular use of study strategies between college students who misused prescription stimulants (N = 36) and college students who did not misuse prescription stimulants (N = 298) in an undergraduate sample. Participants: 334 college students at a large, Midwestern university. Methods: Using logistic regression, we examined whether students who misused prescription stimulants did so to compensate for poor study strategies and/or a lack of study strategies overall. We hypothesized that regularly spacing studying, using more study strategies, and using more effective study strategies would predict lower odds of prescription stimulant misuse among students. In contrast, we hypothesized that using more ineffective study strategies would predict higher odds of prescription stimulant misuse. Results: Results indicated that a greater number of total study strategies and effective study strategies, and higher importance of school predicted higher odds of prescription stimulant misuse. Conclusions: Thus, students may not be misusing prescription stimulants as a substitute for effective studying but, rather, to augment effective study habits.

The tip-of-the-tongue state as a form of access to information: Use of tip-of-the-tongue states for strategic adaptive test-taking.

Though tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states are traditionally viewed as instances of retrieval failure, some suggest that they are a unique form of retrieval success. The state indicates the presence of something relevant in memory as opposed to nothing. TOTs potentially present an opportunity to indicate that more knowledge is present than is currently accessible, which might have relevance for how tests are designed. The present study investigated this. During TOT states, participants were more likely to risk requesting a later multiple-choice set of potential answers when a point loss penalty for wrong answers would occur; they were also more likely to actually choose the correct multiple-choice answer. A test designed for differential point gain or loss through strategic use of TOT states during word generation failure resulted in a point gain advantage compared to standard multiple-choice type testing. This pattern presents a proof of concept relevant to designing adaptive tests.

When pretesting fails to enhance learning concepts from reading texts.

Prior research suggests that people can learn more from reading a text when they attempt to answer pretest questions first. Specifically, pretests on factual information explicitly stated in a text increases the likelihood that participants can answer identical questions after reading than if they had not answered pretest questions. Yet, a central goal of education is to develop deep conceptual understanding. The present experiments investigated whether conceptual pretests facilitate learning concepts from reading texts. In Experiment 1, participants were given factual or conceptual pretest questions; a control group was not given a pretest. Participants then read a passage and took a final test consisting of both factual and conceptual questions. Some of the final test questions were repeated from the pretest and some were new. Although factual pretesting improved learning for identical factual questions, conceptual pretesting did not enhance conceptual learning. Conceptual pretest errors were significantly more likely to be repeated on the final test than factual pretest errors. Providing correct answers (Experiment 2) or correct/incorrect feedback (Experiment 3) following pretest questions enhanced performance on repeated conceptual test items, although these benefits likely reflect memorization and not conceptual understanding. Thus, pretesting appears to provide little benefit for learning conceptual information. (PsycINFO Database Record

Do the Best Teachers Get the Best Ratings?

We review recent studies that asked: do college students learn relatively more from teachers whom they rate highly on student evaluation forms? Recent studies measured learning at two-time points. When learning was measured with a test at the end of the course, the teachers who got the highest ratings were the ones who contributed the most to learning. But when learning was measured as performance in subsequent related courses, the teachers who had received relatively low ratings appeared to have been most effective. We speculate about why these effects occurred: making a course difficult in productive ways may decrease ratings but enhance learning. Despite their limitations, we do not suggest abandoning student ratings, but do recommend that student evaluation scores should not be the sole basis for evaluating college teaching and they should be recognized for what they are.