바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.2

Citation Share

Why They Chose What They Chose: Exploring Effects of Test Performance and Metacognitive Judgments on Learners’ Selection of Interleaving Schedule

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.2, pp.169-188
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.2.004


& (2020). Why They Chose What They Chose: Exploring Effects of Test Performance and Metacognitive Judgments on Learners’ Selection of Interleaving Schedule. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 32(2), 169-188, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.2.004

Abstract

Effective learning demands awareness and spontaneous execution of an optimal study schedule. While prior research suggests the opposite, learners tend to believe that learning from a blocked schedule (grouping exemplars by category) is more effective than learning from an interleaved schedule (intermixing exemplars). We investigated how the initial learning experience affected learners’ selection of a subsequent study schedule using a painting-style learning task. Participants studied the first section in an interleaved schedule and were given a different interim activity on that section (test vs. restudy). They were then asked to select their own study schedule for the second section between interleaved and blocked schedules. After that, participants took a final transfer test and again selected a subsequent study schedule. Participants were also asked to make judgments of learning (JOL) several times (after study and after test) throughout the experiment. The results revealed that the interleaving-selectors showed better learning on the subsequent section, demonstrating a robust interleaving effect. More interestingly, the first selection of interleaving schedule was predicted by learners’ better interim-test performance. Furthermore, participants who experienced improvement via testing or via JOL throughout the experiment were more likely to stay on the same study schedule. These findings suggest that providing learners with a successful learning experience may be one way of encouraging them to choose and continue a more effective interleaving study method.

keywords
effective study strategies, interleaving effect, study schedule selection, testing, 효과적인 학습법, 교차효과, 학습법 선택, 시험

Reference

1.

Anthenien, A. M., DeLozier, S. J., Neighbors, C., & Rhodes, M. G. (2018). College student normative misperceptions of peer study habit use. Social Psychology of Education, 21, 303-322.

2.

Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2015). Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 1-13.

3.

Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 392-402.

4.

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56-64). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

5.

Bjork, E. L., de Winstanley, P. A., & Storm, B. C. (2007). Learning how to learn: Can experiencing the outcome of different encoding strategies enhance subsequent encoding?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 207-211.

6.

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

7.

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.

8.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Buchanan, J. J. (1989). Developmental and knowledge base differences in the acquisition and extension of a memory strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 451-471.

9.

Brigham, M. C., & Pressley, M. (1988). Cognitive monitoring and strategy choice in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 3, 249-257.

10.

Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., & Lawton, S. Q. (1978). The effects of experience on the selection of suitable retrieval cues for studying texts. Child Development, 49, 829-835.

11.

Burnett, A., & Bodner, G. (2013). Generating Better Readers and/or Generators Across Two Study-Test Blocks. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 292-293.

12.

Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., de Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). An in vivo study of self-regulated study sequencing in introductory psychology courses. PloS one, 11(3), e0152115.

13.

Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42, 481-495.

14.

DeWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32, 945-955.

15.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58.

16.

Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York. NY: Academic Press.

17.

Guzman-Munoz, F. J. (2017). The advantage of mixing examples in inductive learning: A comparison of three hypotheses. Educational Psychology, 37, 421-437.

18.

Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 126-134.

19.

Kang, S. H., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles:Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97-103.

20.

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”?. Psychological Science, 19, 585-592.

21.

Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 498-503.

22.

Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 609-622.

23.

Lee, H. S., & Ahn, D. (2018). Testing prepares students to learn better: The forward effect of testing in category learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 203-217.

24.

Lee, H., & Ha, H. (2019). Metacognitive judgments of prior material facilitate the learning of new material: The forward effect of metacognitive judgments in inductive learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111. 1189-1201.

25.

McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462-476.

26.

McCabe, J. A. (2018). What Learning Strategies Do Academic Support Centers Recommend to Undergraduates?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 143-153.

27.

Mitchum, A. L., Kelley, C. M., & Fox, M. C. (2016). When asking the question changes the ultimate answer:Metamemory judgments change memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 200-219.

28.

Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Foster, N. L. (2017). Do people use category-learning judgments to regulate their learning of natural categories?. Memory & Cognition, 45, 1253-1269.

29.

Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., & DeLozier, S. (2016). Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies. Memory, 24, 257-271.

30.

Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2014). Retrieval practice enhances new learning: The forward effect of testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 286-290.

31.

Patel, R., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. (2016). When to block versus interleave practice? Evidence against teaching fraction addition before fraction multiplication. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2069-2074). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

32.

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1989). Metacognitive benefits of taking a test for children and young adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 430-450.

33.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 270-288.

34.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1988). Strategy-comparison opportunities promote long-term strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 157-168.

35.

Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335-335.

36.

Rabinowitz, M., Freeman, K., & Cohen, S. (1992). Use and maintenance of strategies: The influence of accessibility to knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 211-218.

37.

Rabinowitz, M., & McAuley, R. (2014). The effects of ease of processing on the use and perception of strategies. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 919-927.

38.

Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 900-908.

39.

Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481-498.

40.

Sahakyan, L., Delaney, P. F., & Kelley, C. M. (2004). Self-evaluation as a moderating factor of strategy change in directed forgetting benefits. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 131-136.

41.

Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 356-363.

42.

Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85-106). New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Vlach, H. A., & Kalish, C. W. (2014). Temporal dynamics of categorization: Forgetting as the basis of abstraction and generalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1021-1029.

44.

Woolley, K. E., Huang, T., & Rabinowitz, M. (2019). The effects of knowledge, strategies, and the interaction between the two in verbal analogy problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 91-105.

45.

Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 145, 918-933.

46.

Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 23, 403-416.

47.

Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: A review of the forward testing effect. NPJ Science of Learning, 3(1), 8-16.

48.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.

49.

Zulkiply, N., McLean, J., Burt, J. S., & Bath, D. (2012). Spacing and induction: Application to exemplars presented as auditory and visual text. Learning and Instruction, 22, 215-221.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy