Scheduling math practice: Students' underappreciation of spacing and interleaving.

Many randomized controlled experiments in the classroom have found that mathematics learning is improved dramatically when practice problems of one kind are distributed across multiple assignments (spaced) and mixed with other kinds of problems (interleaved). In two studies, we investigated students' knowledge of spacing and interleaving. In Study 1, 193 undergraduates designed learning schedules for a hypothetical math class. In Study 2, 175 undergraduates selected from among five hypothetical schedules in response to a variety of questions, provided reasons for their selections, and rated the utility of spacing and interleaving. In both studies, most participants incorrectly judged schedules with minimal degrees of spacing and interleaving to be most effective. Also, schedules with more spacing and interleaving were perceived as more difficult, less enjoyable, and less common. Participants' ratings of utility revealed mixed perspectives on spacing and an underappreciation of interleaving. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that most students fail to recognize the benefits of spaced and interleaved practice. Further, by identifying specific ways in which their beliefs about spacing and interleaving fall short, we reveal opportunities to reshape students' beliefs to foster these effective learning techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Do Gender Differences in Perceived Prototypical Computer Scientists and Engineers Contribute to Gender Gaps in Computer Science and Engineering?

Women are vastly underrepresented in the fields of computer science and engineering (CS&E). We examined whether women might view the intellectual characteristics of prototypical individuals in CS&E in more stereotype-consistent ways than men might and, consequently, show less interest in CS&E. We asked 269 U.S. college students (187, 69.5% women) to describe the prototypical computer scientist (Study 1) or engineer (Study 2) through open-ended descriptions as well as through a set of trait ratings. Participants also rated themselves on the same set of traits and rated their similarity to the prototype. Finally, participants in both studies were asked to describe their likelihood of pursuing future college courses and careers in computer science (Study 1) or engineering (Study 2). Across both studies, we found that women offered more stereotype-consistent ratings than did men of the intellectual characteristics of prototypes in CS (Study 1) and engineering (Study 2). Women also perceived themselves as less similar to the prototype than men did. Further, the observed gender differences in prototype perceptions mediated the tendency for women to report lower interest in CS&E fields relative to men. Our work highlights the importance of prototype perceptions for understanding the gender gap in CS&E and suggests avenues for interventions that may increase women's representation in these vital fields.

The contribution of judgment scale to the unskilled-and-unaware phenomenon: how evaluating others can exaggerate over- (and under-) confidence.

The unskilled-and-unaware phenomenon occurs when low performers tend to overestimate their performance on a task, whereas high performers judge their performance more accurately (and sometimes underestimate it). In previous research, this phenomenon has been observed for a variety of cognitive tasks and judgment scales. However, the role of judgment scale in producing the unskilled-and-unaware phenomenon has not been systematically investigated. Thus, we present four studies in which all participants judged their performance on both a relative scale (percentile rank) and an absolute scale (number correct). The studies included a variety of performance tasks (general knowledge questions, math problems, introductory psychology questions, and logic questions) and test formats (multiple-choice, recall). Across all tasks and formats, the percentile-rank judgments were less accurate than the absolute judgments, particularly for low and high performers. Furthermore, in Studies 1-3, the absolute judgments were highly accurate, even when the percentile-rank judgments were not. Thus, differences in the accuracy of percentile-rank judgments across skill levels do not always represent differences in self-awareness, but rather they may arise from difficulties that performers have at evaluating how well others are performing. Most importantly, the unskilled-and-unaware phenomenon on a relative scale does not guarantee inaccurate self-evaluations of absolute performance.

General knowledge monitoring as a predictor of in-class exam performance.

BACKGROUND: Current theories of self-regulated learning predict a positive link between student monitoring accuracy and performance: students who more accurately monitor their knowledge of a particular set of materials are expected to more effectively regulate their subsequent study of those materials, which in turn should lead to higher test performance. AIMS: The present study further explored the link between monitoring accuracy and performance by investigating whether monitoring of one set of materials would predict performance on a different set of materials. SAMPLE: The participants were college students (N= 379) enrolled in an educational psychology course. Method. Students' monitoring accuracy was measured at the start of the semester; the monitoring task involved materials that were not related to class content (i.e., general knowledge vocabulary) and that were related to class content (i.e., terms from educational psychology). Target performance was students' scores on the final exam. RESULTS: Monitoring accuracy significantly predicted student performance on the final exam, even when the monitoring task and final test were based on materials from different content domains. Also, the class-related (vs. unrelated) materials in the monitoring task did not improve the predictive validity of monitoring accuracy, suggesting a limited role for domain specificity in the relationship between monitoring skill and performance. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes a critical link between general monitoring accuracy and exam performance within a classroom setting.

Study strategies of college students: are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?

Previous studies, such as those by Kornell and Bjork (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14:219-224, 2007) and Karpicke, Butler, and Roediger (Memory, 17:471-479, 2009), have surveyed college students' use of various study strategies, including self-testing and rereading. These studies have documented that some students do use self-testing (but largely for monitoring memory) and rereading, but the researchers did not assess whether individual differences in strategy use were related to student achievement. Thus, we surveyed 324 undergraduates about their study habits as well as their college grade point average (GPA). Importantly, the survey included questions about self-testing, scheduling one's study, and a checklist of strategies commonly used by students or recommended by cognitive research. Use of self-testing and rereading were both positively associated with GPA. Scheduling of study time was also an important factor: Low performers were more likely to engage in late-night studying than were high performers; massing (vs. spacing) of study was associated with the use of fewer study strategies overall; and all students-but especially low performers-were driven by impending deadlines. Thus, self-testing, rereading, and scheduling of study play important roles in real-world student achievement.

Improving college students' evaluation of text learning using idea-unit standards.

When recalling key definitions from class materials, college students are often overconfident in the quality of their responses. Even with commission errors, they often judge that their response is entirely or partially correct. To further understand this overconfidence, we investigated whether idea-unit judgements would reduce overconfidence (Experiments 1 and 2) and whether students inflated their scores because they believed that they knew answers but just responded incorrectly (Experiment 2). College students studied key-term definitions and later attempted to recall each definition when given the key term (e.g., What is the availability heuristic?). All students judged the quality of their recall, but some were given a full-definition standard to use, whereas other students first judged whether their response included each of the individual ideas within the corresponding correct answer. In Experiment 1, making these idea-unit judgements reduced overconfidence for commission errors. In Experiment 2, some students were given the correct definitions and graded other students' responses, and some students generated idea units themselves before judging their responses. Students were overconfident even when they graded other students' responses, and, as important, self-generated idea units for each definition also reduced overconfidence in commission errors. Thus, overconfidence appears to result from difficulties in evaluating the quality of recall responses, and such overconfidence can be reduced by using idea-unit judgements.

Using standards to improve middle school students' accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall.

When recalling key term definitions from class materials, students may recall entirely incorrect definitions, yet will often claim that these commission errors are entirely correct; that is, they are overconfident in the quality of their recall responses. We investigated whether this overconfidence could be reduced by providing various standards to middle school students as they evaluated their recall responses. Students studied key term definitions, attempted to recall each one, and then were asked to score the quality of their recall. In Experiment 1, they evaluated their recall responses by rating each response as fully correct, partially correct, or incorrect. Most important, as they evaluated a particular response, it was presented either alone (i.e., without a standard) or with the correct definition present. Providing this full-definition standard reduced overconfidence in commission errors: Students assigned full or partial credit to 73% of their commission errors when they received no standard, whereas they assigned credit to only 44% of these errors when receiving the full-definition standard. In Experiment 2, a new standard was introduced: Idea units from each definition were presented, and students indicated whether each idea unit was in their response. After making these idea-unit judgments, the students then evaluated the quality of their entire response. Idea-unit standards further reduced overconfidence. Thus, although middle school students are overconfident in evaluating the quality of their recall responses, using standards substantially reduces this overconfidence and promises to improve the efficacy of their self-regulated learning.