A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting

In three experiments, learning performance in a 6- or 7-week cognitive-science based computer-study programme was compared to equal time spent self-studying on paper. The first two experiments were conducted with grade 6 and 7 children in a high risk educational setting, the third with Columbia University undergraduates. The principles the programme implemented included (1) deep, meaningful, elaborative, multimodal processing, (2) transfer-appropriate processing, (3) self-generation and multiple testing of responses, and (4) spaced practice. The programme was also designed to thwart metacognitive illusions that would otherwise lead to inappropriate study patterns. All three experiments showed a distinct advantage in final test performance for the cognitive-science based programme, but this advantage was particularly prominent in the children.

[1]  Peter Graf,et al.  Two consequences of generating: Increased inter- and intraword organization of sentences , 1980 .

[2]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[3]  Stuart Oskamp,et al.  The relationship of clinical experience and training methods to several criteria of clinical prediction. , 1962 .

[4]  E. Bjork,et al.  Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  Depth of processing, recognition and recall. , 1976 .

[6]  C. Dweck.  Self-theories and goals: their role in motivation, personality, and development. , 1990, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[7]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Recognition and recall in MINERVA 2: Analysis of the 'recognition-failure' paradigm. , 1987 .

[8]  A. Glenberg.  Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms , 1976 .

[9]  C. Steele,et al.  Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Applied Metacognition: Influence of practice tests on the accuracy of predicting memory performance for paired associates, sentences, and text material , 2002 .

[11]  R. Bjork,et al.  Metacognition in motor learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  T. O. Nelson.  Repetition and depth of processing , 1977 .

[13]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  The promise and perils of self-regulated study , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Janet Metcalfe,et al.  A composite holographic associative recall model , 1982 .

[15]  J. Shaughnessy,et al.  Memory monitoring accuracy and modification of rehearsal strategies , 1981 .

[16]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Considerations of some problems of comprehension. , 1973 .

[17]  P A de Winstanley,et al.  Generation effects and the lack thereof: the role of transfer-appropriate processing. , 1996, Memory.

[18]  J. Metcalfe.  Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. , 1986 .

[19]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[20]  L. Reder,et al.  What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer , 1992 .

[21]  J. Eich.  Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM. , 1985, Psychological review.

[22]  L. Cermak,et al.  Rehearsal strategies of Alcoholic Korsakoff patients , 1976, Brain and Language.

[23]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. , 1999 .

[24]  J. Metcalfe.  Premonitions of insight predict impending error. , 1986 .

[25]  D. Gopher,et al.  Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. , 1999 .

[26]  H. Pashler,et al.  Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  E. Hirshman,et al.  Investigations of the testing effect. , 1996 .

[28]  S. Lichtenstein,et al.  Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1 , 1977 .

[29]  Janet Metcalfe,et al.  An encoding and retrieval model of single-trial free recall , 1981 .

[30]  G. Birdsong,et al.  Testing the test , 2007, Cancer.

[31]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[32]  Eugene B. Zechmeister,et al.  When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. , 1980 .

[33]  J Metcalfe.  Novelty monitoring, metacognition, and control in a composite holographic associative recall model: implications for Korsakoff amnesia. , 1993, Psychological review.

[34]  R. Bjork.  Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[35]  Depth of processing and retention of words by alcoholic Korsakoff patients. , 1978 .

[36]  Temporal Spacing and Learning , 2006 .

[37]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Testing the testing effect in the classroom , 2007 .

[38]  J. Eich.  A composite holographic associative recall model. , 1982 .

[39]  R. Bjork,et al.  Primary versus secondary rehearsal in imagined voices: Differential effects on recognition , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  J M Gardiner,et al.  A generation effect with numbers rather than words , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[41]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Predicting syndromes of amnesia from a composite holographic associative recall/recognition model (CHARM). , 1997, Memory.

[42]  Kathleen B McDermott,et al.  Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[44]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  THE TROUBLE WITH LEVELS: A REEXAMINATION OF CRAIK AND LOCKHART'S FRAMEWORK FOR MEMORY RESEARCH , 1978 .

[45]  William L. Cull,et al.  Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall , 2000 .

[46]  A. Koriat,et al.  Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. , 1996, Psychological review.

[47]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[48]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  J. Metcalfe.  Cognitive Optimism: Self-Deception or Memory-Based Processing Heuristics? , 1998, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[50]  Z. Peynircioǧlu.  The generation effect with pictures and nonsense figures , 1989 .

[51]  R. Bjork.  10 – Repetition and Rehearsal Mechanisms in Models for Short-Term Memory , 1970 .

[52]  R. Bjork,et al.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[53]  Harry P. Bahrick,et al.  The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect , 2005 .

[54]  Harold Pashler,et al.  The Effect of Overlearning on Long-Term Retention , 2005 .

[55]  H. Pashler,et al.  The influence of retrieval on retention , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[56]  Patricia A. de Winstanley,et al.  Generation Effects and the Lack Thereof: The Role of Transfer-appropriate Processing , 1996 .

[57]  Lisa Geraci,et al.  Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework , 2002, Memory.

[58]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[59]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Cue familiarity but not target retrievability enhances feeling-of-knowing judgments. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[61]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[62]  J. Eich.  Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM. , 1985, Psychology Review.

[63]  Elizabeth E. Johns,et al.  The generation effect with nonwords. , 1988 .

[64]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Does the Sensitivity of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) to the Effects of Various Study Activities Depend on When the JOLs Occur , 1994 .

[65]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. , 1978 .

[66]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Test-Enhanced Learning , 2006, Psychological science.

[67]  A. Koriat.  Memory''s knowledge of its own knowledge: The accessibility account of the feeling of knowing , 1994 .

[68]  Janet Metcalfe.  Distortions in human memory , 1998 .

[69]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[70]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Metacognitive Control: Children's Short-Term Versus Long-Term Study Strategies , 2005 .

[71]  D. S. Lindsay,et al.  Remembering Mistaken for Knowing: Ease of Retrieval as a Basis for Confidence in Answers to General Knowledge Questions , 1993 .

[72]  J. Hampton,et al.  Semantic memory and the generation effect: Some tests of the lexical activation hypothesis. , 1985 .

[73]  Janet Metcalfe,et al.  Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[74]  F. Craik,et al.  Encoding specificity revisited: the role of semantics. , 2001, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[75]  L. Reder.  Strategy selection in question answering , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[76]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Controlled rehearsal in single-trial free recall , 1978 .

[77]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Processing in Human Memory , 1979 .

[78]  A. Koriat.  Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .

[79]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials , 2007 .

[80]  D. Rundus.  Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall. , 1971 .

[81]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  Unconscious Influences of Memory for a Prior Event , 1987 .

[82]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[83]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generation, errors, and feedback , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[84]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Judgments of Learning at Delays: Shifts in Response Patterns or Increased Metamemory Accuracy? , 1997 .

[85]  F. Craik,et al.  Interaction between encoding and retrieval operations in cued recall. , 1977 .

[86]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  A Region of Proximal Learning Model of Study Time Allocation Journal of Memory and Language , 2005 .

[87]  C. Dweck,et al.  The relation between motivational patterns and achievement cognitions through the elementary school years , 1995 .

[88]  James S. Nairne,et al.  Generation Effects With Nonwords : The Role of Test Appropriateness , 2001 .

[89]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .