Why do learners ignore expected feedback in making metacognitive decisions about retrieval practice?

We report two experiments investigating why learners, in making metacognitive judgments, often seem to ignore or otherwise fail to appreciate that feedback following retrieval practice provides a restudy opportunity. Learners practiced word pairs for a final cued-recall test by studying each pair initially, making a judgment of learning (JOL), and then deciding whether to practice the pair again after a short or long spacing interval, or not at all. For different groups in Experiment 1, additional practice involved restudying, retrieval practice without feedback, or retrieval practice with feedback (the full pair). We used procedures (long feedback duration and covert retrieval practice) designed to rule out the possibility that feedback is ignored because it is usually brief or because participants' choices are influenced by a desire to look good by performing well on overt practice tests. In the relearning condition, learners preferred a long spacing interval for items at all JOL levels. Despite the feedback duration and the covert retrieval practice, learners in both retrieval-practice conditions preferred a short spacing interval for hard, low-JOL items and a long spacing interval for easy, high-JOL items, even though this may not be an effective strategy when feedback is provided. In Experiment 2, instructions framed feedback either as a presentation of the correct answer or as a restudy opportunity preceded by retrieval practice. Framing feedback as a restudy opportunity markedly changed the choices learners made. Apparently, the restudy function of feedback does not occur to learners unless they are specifically alerted to it.

Level of initial training moderates the effects of distributing practice over multiple days with expanding, contracting, and uniform schedules: Evidence for study-phase retrieval.

Inconsistent results have been obtained in experiments comparing the effects on retention of expanding, contracting, and uniform practice schedules, in which the spacing between successive practice sessions progressively increases, progressively decreases, or remains constant, respectively. In the present study, we experimentally assessed an apparent trend in the literature for expanding schedules to be more advantageous than other schedules following a low level of training during the initial learning session, but not following a high level of initial training. College students studied pseudocword-word pairs in multiple practice sessions distributed over a 13-day period according to expanding, contracting, and uniform schedules. During their initial learning session, participants received either low-level training (two study trials) or high-level training (one study trial and then five rounds of practice testing with corrective feedback). All participants were treated identically in the subsequent practice sessions. A final cued-recall test after a two-week retention interval revealed an expanding-schedule superiority following low-level initial training but not following high-level initial training. These results are interpreted in terms of a study-phase-retrieval mechanism and help explain the mixed results obtained in the prior literature.