ABSTRACT
During category learning, students struggle to create an optimal study order: They often study one category at a time (i.e., blocked practice) instead of alternating between different categories (i.e., interleaved practice). Several interventions to improve self-study of categorical learning have been proposed, but these interventions have only been tested in learning tasks where students did not create the study order themselves. Instead, they decided which type of study order to follow. This pre-registered experiment examined whether an intervention that combines refutations and metacognitive prompts can enhance students' engagement in interleaved practice, specifically when they organize the learning materials themselves. Ninety-one undergraduate students were randomized into the intervention and control condition and learned visual categories. Prior to the intervention, students used more blocked practice. After the intervention, the use of interleaved practice significantly increased in both immediate and delayed-transfer tasks. More interleaved practice was associated with better classification performance. Our findings indicate that refutations and metacognitive prompts form a strong intervention that corrects students' erroneous beliefs and increases their engagement in interleaved practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During self-study, students need to monitor and regulate mental effort to replete working memory resources and optimize learning results. Taking breaks during self-study could be an effective effort regulation strategy. However, little is known about how breaktaking relates to self-regulated learning. AIMS: We investigated the effects of taking systematic or self-regulated breaks on mental effort, task experiences and task completion in real-life study sessions for 1 day. SAMPLE: Eighty-seven bachelor's and master's students from a Dutch University. METHODS: Students participated in an online intervention during their self-study. In the self-regulated-break condition (n = 35), students self-decided when to take a break; in the systematic break conditions, students took either a 6-min break after every 24-min study block (systematic-long or 'Pomodoro technique', n = 25) or a 3-min break after every 12-min study block (systematic-short, n = 27). RESULTS: Students had longer study sessions and breaks when self-regulating. This was associated with higher levels of fatigue and distractedness, and lower levels of concentration and motivation compared to those in the systematic conditions. We found no difference between groups in invested mental effort or task completion. CONCLUSIONS: Taking pre-determined, systematic breaks during a study session had mood benefits and appeared to have efficiency benefits (i.e., similar task completion in shorter time) over taking self-regulated breaks. Measuring how mental effort dynamically fluctuates over time and how effort spent on the learning task differs from effort spent on regulating break-taking requires further research.
Subject(s)
Motivation , Students , Humans , Learning , UniversitiesABSTRACT
During the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, universities had to shift from face-to-face to emergency remote education. Students were forced to study online, with limited access to facilities and less contact with peers and teachers, while at the same time being exposed to more autonomy. This study examined how students adapted to emergency remote learning, specifically focusing on students' resource-management strategies using an individual differences approach. One thousand eight hundred university students completed a questionnaire on their resource-management strategies and indicators of (un)successful adaptation to emergency remote learning. On average, students reported being less able to regulate their attention, effort, and time and less motivated compared to the situation before the crisis started; they also reported investing more time and effort in their self-study. Using a k-means cluster analysis, we identified four adaptation profiles and labeled them according to the reported changes in their resource-management strategies: the overwhelmed, the surrenderers, the maintainers, and the adapters. Both the overwhelmed and surrenderers appeared to be less able to regulate their effort, attention, and time and reported to be less motivated to study than before the crisis. In contrast, the adapters appreciated the increased level of autonomy and were better able to self-regulate their learning. The resource-management strategies of the maintainers remained relatively stable. Students' responses to open-answer questions on their educational experience, coded using a thematic analysis, were consistent with the quantitative profiles. Implications about how to support students in adapting to online learning are discussed.
ABSTRACT
Previous studies suggest that frequent media multitasking - the simultaneous use of different media at the same time - may be associated with increased susceptibility to internal and external sources of distraction. At the same time, other studies found no evidence for such associations. In the current study, we report the results of a large-scale study (N=261) in which we measured media multitasking with a short media-use questionnaire and measured distraction with a change-detection task that included different numbers of distractors. To determine whether internally generated distraction affected performance, we deployed experience-sampling probes during the change-detection task. The results showed that participants with higher media multitasking scores did not perform worse as distractor set size increased, they did not perform worse in general, and their responses on the experience-sampling probes made clear that they also did not experience more lapses of attention during the task. Critically, these results were robust across different methods of analysis (i.e., Linear Mixed Modeling, Bayes factors, and extreme-groups comparison). At the same time, our use of the short version of the media-use questionnaire might limit the generalizability of our findings. In light of our results, we suggest that future studies should ensure an adequate level of statistical power and implement a more precise measure for media multitasking.
Subject(s)
Communications Media , Attention , Bayes Theorem , HumansABSTRACT
In the original article, the number of HMMs and LMMs who took part in the first study was reported to have been 13and 10, respectively (p. 2624).
ABSTRACT
Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583-15587) found that people with high scores on the media-use questionnaire-a questionnaire that measures the proportion of media-usage time during which one uses more than one medium at the same time-show impaired performance on various tests of distractor filtering. Subsequent studies, however, did not all show this association between media multitasking and distractibility, thus casting doubt on the reliability of the initial findings. Here, we report the results of two replication studies and a meta-analysis that included the results from all published studies into the relationship between distractor filtering and media multitasking. Our replication studies included a total of 14 tests that had an average replication power of 0.81. Of these 14 tests, only five yielded a statistically significant effect in the direction of increased distractibility for people with higher scores on the media-use questionnaire, and only two of these effects held in a more conservative Bayesian analysis. Supplementing these outcomes, our meta-analysis on a total of 39 effect sizes yielded a weak but significant association between media multitasking and distractibility that turned nonsignificant after correction for small-study effects. Taken together, these findings lead us to question the existence of an association between media multitasking and distractibility in laboratory tasks of information processing.
