Content uploaded by Taylor Curley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Taylor Curley on May 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Influence of Feedback on Metacognitive Decisions about Spacing Practice Tests: A Framing Effect?
Abstract
When learners can self-schedule the second presentation of a to-be-learned pair (i.e., choose the spacing), their choices depend on the nature of the expected second presentation. When a restudy opportunity is expected, they choose a long spacing for all items, especially the hardest. When a practice test is expected, they choose a short spacing for the hardest items and do so regardless of whether feedback (another study opportunity) follows the practice test. Ignoring feedback when choosing spacing seems suboptimal but could be explained by demand characteristics (an overt practice test) and/or timing (brief feedback). We eliminated factors that might minimize the effect of feedback but obtained the same results. Subsequent experimentation indicated that learners’ choices depend on whether a practice test with feedback is “framed” as a practice test with feedback or as a restudy opportunity preceded by a practice test. Implications for relevant metacognitive knowledge and strategies are considered.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Knowing how to manage one's own learning has become increasingly important in recent years, as both the need and the opportunities for individuals to learn on their own outside of formal classroom settings have grown. During that same period, however, research on learning, memory, and metacognitive processes has provided evidence that people often have a faulty mental model of how they learn and remember, making them prone to both misassessing and mismanaging their own learning. After a discussion of what learners need to understand in order to become effective stewards of their own learning, we first review research on what people believe about how they learn and then review research on how people's ongoing assessments of their own learning are influenced by current performance and the subjective sense of fluency. We conclude with a discussion of societal assumptions and attitudes that can be counterproductive in terms of individuals becoming maximally effective learners. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology Volume 64 is November 30, 2012. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
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.
Self-regulated study involves many decisions, some of which people make confidently and easily (if not always optimally) and others of which are involved and difficult. Good study decisions rest on accurate monitoring of ongoing learning, a realistic mental model of how learning happens, and appropriate use of study strategies. We review our research on the decisions people make, for better or worse, when deciding what to study, how long to study, and how to study.
Metacognitive control of spacing and testing during learning: Are they related? Poster presented at the 52 nd annual meeting of the
- M H Lavan
- M J Pagano
- T C Toppino
LaVan, M.H., Pagano, M.J., & Toppino, T.C. (2011). Metacognitive control of spacing and
testing during learning: Are they related? Poster presented at the 52 nd annual meeting of
the Psychonomic Society, November, Seattle, Washington.
Efficacy of metacognitive decisions about practice tests: Spacing and feedback. Poster presented at the 54 th annual meeting of the
- M J Pagano
- T C Toppino
Pagano, M.J. & Toppino, T.C. (2013). Efficacy of metacognitive decisions about practice tests:
Spacing and feedback. Poster presented at the 54 th annual meeting of the Psychonomic
Society, November, Toronto, Canada.