No Simple Solutions to Complex Problems: Cognitive Science Principles Can Guide but Not Prescribe Educational Decisions.

Cognitive science of learning points to solutions for making use of existing study and instruction time more effectively and efficiently. However, solutions are not and cannot be one-size-fits-all. This paper outlines the danger of overreliance on specific strategies as one-size-fits-all recommendations and highlights instead the cognitive learning processes that facilitate meaningful and long-lasting learning. Three of the most commonly recommended strategies from cognitive science provide a starting point; understanding the underlying processes allows us to tailor these recommendations to implement at the right time, in the right way, for the right content, and for the right students. Recommendations regard teacher training, the funding and incentivizing of educational interventions, guidelines for the development of educational technologies, and policies that focus on using existing instructional time more wisely.

Broader benefits of the pretesting effect: Placement matters.

Taking a test before learning new information in a lesson improves memory for that information - pretesting effect. Although the specific memory benefit of a pretest on pretested information has been well documented, it remains unclear what the circumstances necessary for the broader memory benefit are - that is, the benefit of a pretest on memory of information in the lesson that was not pretested. Sometimes this broader benefit is present, but other times it disappears or reverses. We investigated if manipulating where the non-pretested information appears in a lesson - either before or after the pretested information - affects broader memory benefits. Participants read a text passage (Experiment 1) or watched a video lecture (Experiment 2) after completing a pretest on half of the lesson content. The pretested information appeared either at the beginning (prior to the non-pretested information) or at the end (after the non-pretested information) of the lesson. The final test assessed memory of both pretested and non-pretested information. We hypothesized that pretests trigger an attentional window that opens during the lesson and closes after pretested information has been identified. Any information, including non-pretested information, will benefit from being in this window because it is more likely to be processed. We found that memory of non-pretested information is better if the non-pretested information is presented at the beginning versus at the end of a lesson, regardless of delivery modality. These results indicate that the presentation order of pretested versus non-pretested information contributes to the broader memory benefits associated with pretesting.

Interleaving Retrieval Practice Promotes Science Learning.

Can interleaved retrieval practice enhance learning in classrooms? Across a 4-week period, ninth- through 12th-grade students (N = 155) took a weekly quiz in their science courses that tested half of the concepts taught that week. Questions on each quiz were either blocked by concept or interleaved with different concepts. A month after the final quiz, students were tested on the concepts covered in the 4-week period. Replicating the retrieval-practice effect, results showed that participants performed better on concepts that had been on blocked quizzes (M = 54%, SD = 28%) than on concepts that had not been quizzed (M = 47%, SD = 20%; d = 0.30). Interleaved quizzes led to even greater benefits: Participants performed better on concepts that had been on interleaved quizzes (M = 63%, SD = 26%) than on concepts that had been on blocked quizzes (d = 0.35). These results demonstrate a cost-effective strategy to promote classroom learning.

Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice.

The use of practice tests to enhance learning, or test-enhanced learning, ranks among the most effective of all pedagogical techniques. We investigated the relative efficacy of pretesting (i.e., errorful generation) and posttesting (i.e., retrieval practice), two of the most prominent practice test types in the literature to date. Pretesting involves taking tests before to-be-learned information is studied, whereas posttesting involves taking tests after information is studied. In five experiments (combined n = 1,573), participants studied expository text passages, each paired with a pretest or a posttest. The tests involved multiple-choice (Experiments 1-5) or cued recall format (Experiments 2-4) and were administered with or without correct answer feedback (Experiments 3-4). On a criterial test administered 5 min or 48 hr later, both test types enhanced memory relative to a no-test control, but pretesting yielded higher overall scores. That advantage held across test formats, in the presence or absence of feedback, at different retention intervals, and appeared to stem from enhanced processing of text passage content (Experiment 5). Thus, although the benefits of posttesting are more well-established in the literature, pretesting is highly competitive with posttesting and can yield similar, if not greater, pedagogical benefits. These findings have important implications for the incorporation of practice tests in education and training contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The interplay between inhibitory control and metaphor conventionality.

When a metaphor is first encountered (lawyers are sharks), several meanings are activated, but the literal ones (lawyers have fins) need to be inhibited to successfully compute the figurative meaning (lawyers are aggressive). With repeated exposure that metaphor becomes conventionalized, and its figurative meaning may be easily accessible without the need to inhibit the corresponding literal meaning. Thus, a central question in the field, and the objective of the current project, relates to how metaphor conventionality and inhibitory control contribute to metaphor comprehension. Participants completed a sense-nonsense task in which they indicated whether metaphorical and literal phrases had sensible meanings. In Experiment 1, participants also completed an inhibitory control task that assessed their ability to inhibit task-irrelevant responses. Participants with lower inhibitory control were slower at responding to more novel metaphors and faster at responding to more conventional metaphors compared with participants with higher inhibitory control. In Experiment 2, we used a dual-task paradigm to reduce participants' inhibitory control resources while performing the sense-nonsense task. Participants completed the sense-nonsense task concurrently with a different secondary task. This assessed their ability to evaluate phrases under low and high inhibitory load conditions. Performance on the sense-nonsense task was higher when processing more conventional than more novel metaphors when participants' inhibitory control processes were taxed in the high load condition. These findings suggest that inhibitory control does play a role in metaphor comprehension-the less conventional a metaphor, the more inhibitory skills are required to compute the figurative meaning.

Improving conceptual learning via pretests.

Although examples can be structured to emphasize diagnostic features of concepts, novice learners tend to focus on irrelevant surface features and struggle to encode deeper structures. Experiment 1 examined whether pretesting-answering questions about content before it is studied-could enhance learners' noticing of diagnostic features, making them easier to process during subsequent study. Participants studied statistical concepts with examples that emphasized surface details or deep structure, and then classified new examples of these concepts. Studying examples that emphasized deep structure increased classification performance compared to examples that emphasized surface details. Moreover, taking pretests prior to studying the examples increased classification performance and eliminated differential benefits of studying structure versus surface examples. Experiment 2 examined whether pretesting serves a role beyond directing attention. After studying different statistical concepts with only surface-emphasizing examples, classification performance was better when participants actually took pretests compared to being given the correct responses. It is the generative aspect of pretesting, beyond attention directing, that improves conceptual learning among novice learners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Optimizing the Efficacy of Learning Objectives through Pretests.

Learning objectives (LOs) are statements that typically precede a study session and describe the knowledge students should obtain by the end of the session. Despite their widespread use, limited research has investigated the effect of LOs on learning. In three laboratory experiments, we examined the extent to which LOs improve retention of information. Participants in each experiment read five passages on a neuroscience topic and took a final test that measured how well they retained the information. Presenting LOs before each corresponding passage increased performance on the final test compared with not presenting LOs (experiment 1). Actively presenting LOs increased their pedagogical value: Performance on the final test was highest when participants answered multiple-choice pretest questions compared with when they read traditional LO statements or statements that included target facts (experiment 2). Interestingly, when feedback was provided on pretest responses, performance on the final test decreased, regardless of whether the pretest format was multiple choice or short answer (experiment 3). Together, these findings suggest that, compared with the passive presentation of LO statements, pretesting (especially without feedback) is a more active method that optimizes learning.

Learning from errors: students' and instructors' practices, attitudes, and beliefs.

In some educational contexts, such as during assessments, it is essential to avoid errors. In other contexts, however, generating an error can foster valuable learning opportunities. For instance, generating errors can improve memory for correct answers. In two surveys conducted at three large public universities in North America, we investigated undergraduate students' and instructors' awareness of the pedagogical benefits of generating errors, as well as related practices, attitudes, and beliefs. Surveyed topics included the incorporation of errors into learning activities, opinions about the consequences of studying errors, and approaches to feedback. Many students had an aversion towards making errors during learning and did not use opportunities to engage in errorful generation, yet studied or analysed errors when they occurred. Many instructors had a welcoming attitude towards errors that occur during learning, yet varied in providing students with resources that facilitate errorful generation. Overall, these findings reveal the prevalence of an ambivalent approach to errors: Students and instructors avoid generating errors but prioritise learning from them when they occur. These results have important implications for the implementation of pretesting, productive failure, and other error-focused learning techniques in educational contexts.

Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning.

In this study, we examined students' natural studying behaviors in massive, open, online course (MOOC) on introductory psychology. We found that, overall, distributing study across multiple sessions-increasing spacing-was related to increased performance on end-of-unit quizzes, even when comparing the same student across different time-points in the course. Moreover, we found important variation on who is more likely to engage in spaced study and benefit from it. Students with higher ability and students who were more likely to complete course activities were more likely to space their study. Spacing benefits, however, were largest for the lower-ability students and for those students who were less likely to complete activities. These results suggest that spaced study might work as a buffer, improving performance for low ability students and those who do not engage in active practices. This study highlights the positive impact of spacing in real-world learning situations, but more importantly, the role of self-regulated learning decisions in shaping the impact of spaced practice.