Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing

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.

[1]  C. Izawa,et al.  Optimal Potentiating Effects and Forgetting-Prevention Effects of Tests in Paired-Associate Learning. , 1970 .

[2]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall , 1971 .

[3]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning , 1978 .

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

[5]  J. Flavell.  Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[6]  P. E. Morris,et al.  Practical aspects of memory , 1980 .

[7]  P. E. Morris,et al.  Practical aspects of memory : current research and issues , 1988 .

[8]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. , 1988 .

[9]  John A. Glover,et al.  The "Testing" Phenomenon: Not Gone but Nearly Forgotten , 1989 .

[10]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension , 1990 .

[11]  I. Begg,et al.  Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  Tests and test feedback as learning sources , 1991 .

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

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

[15]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning , 1994 .

[16]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Older and younger adults use a functionally identical algorithm to select items for restudy during multitrial learning. , 1997, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[18]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. , 1998, Acta psychologica.

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

[20]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

[21]  D. Kuhn.  Metacognitive Development , 2000 .

[22]  T. Perfect,et al.  The effects of repetition on allocation of study time and judgements of learning in Alzheimer’s disease , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

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

[24]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[26]  Nate Kornell,et al.  The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[27]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Spacing one's study: evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  R. Bjork,et al.  The Generation Effect: Support for a Two-Factor Theory , 1988 .

[29]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[30]  Asher Koriat,et al.  Predicting one's own forgetting: the role of experience-based and theory-based processes. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  H. Pashler,et al.  When does feedback facilitate learning of words? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[33]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Second-Order Judgments About Judgments of Learning , 2005 .

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

[35]  Shana K. Carpenter,et al.  Application of the Testing and Spacing Effects to Name Learning , 2005 .

[36]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Power of Testing Memory Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice , 2006 .

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

[38]  Asher Koriat,et al.  The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[40]  Nate Kornell,et al.  A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting , 2007, The European journal of cognitive psychology.

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

[42]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention , 2007 .

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

[44]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Examining the Testing Effect with Open-and Closed-book Tests , 2022 .

[45]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits—and costs—of dropping flashcards , 2008, Memory.

[46]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning , 2008, Science.

[47]  R. Bjork,et al.  Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  Nate Kornell,et al.  The pretesting effect: do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[49]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Optimising Learning Using Flashcards: Spacing Is More Effective Than Cramming , 2009 .

[50]  Lnnny L. Jecosy.  On Interpreting the Effects of Repetition : Solving a Problem Versus Remembering a Solution , 2010 .