Does Interactive Imagery Influence the Reactive Effect of Judgments of Learning on Memory?

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying is a useful tool for students to evaluate the status of their learning. Additionally, in associative learning contexts, JOLs can directly benefit learning when the to-be-learned information is related. One explanation for this reactive effect is that making JOLs strengthens the associative relationship, leading to enhanced memory performance when a test relies on that relationship (e.g., cued-recall tests). In the present research, we evaluated whether having students make interactive mental images-another strategy that can increase the strength of a cue-target relationship-impacts the reactive effect of JOLs on learning. Students studied word pairs that were related and unrelated. Half of the students were instructed to form a mental image of the words interacting, whereas the other half were not. Additionally, in each group half of the students made a JOL for each pair, whereas half did not. Following a short delay, students completed a cued-recall test. Consistent with prior research, students who made JOLs remembered more related word pairs than did students who did not. By contrast, students who made JOLs recalled fewer unrelated word pairs than did students who did not. Moreover, although students who formed interactive images demonstrated enhanced memory relative to students who did not, interactive imagery did not impact the reactive effect of JOLs. These outcomes are informative for existing theory of JOL reactivity. Specifically, JOLs may only benefit learning of associative information when it has a pre-existing semantic relationship (e.g., related word pairs) and not when that that relationship is created by the learner (e.g., by forming interactive images).

Students' decisions to switch between categories or stay within them are related to practice classification performance.

How exemplars are ordered - blocked or interleaved - can play a critical role in later classification performance. Even so, when students self-regulate their learning, they typically block their study by choosing to stay within the same category on subsequent trials. Our goal was to evaluate the degree to which such decisions to stay within a category are influenced by performance on the previous practice trial. In five experiments, participants learned to classify categories of rocks by completing practice classification trials, receiving feedback, and making decisions about what to study on the next practice trial. The rate of stay choices was influenced by feedback type, a preceding familiarity trial, and location in the list. Most importantly, stay rates were low following correct classification demonstrating a preference to interleave study. By contrast, stay rates substantially increased following incorrect classification. Thus, practice classification performance and subsequent study decisions during complex categorical learning tasks can be strongly related.

Do Domain Knowledge and Retrieval Practice Predict Students' Study Order Decisions?

Learning complex concepts is necessary for student success, but it is often challenging. Learning such concepts can be influenced by students' study order choices during learning to switch to a new category (interleaved study order) or stay within the same category (blocked study order). Students often prefer stay decisions during learning and make relatively few switch decisions; however, an open question is whether students' switch decisions are related to their level of prior knowledge in the domain and the learning strategy they use (retrieval practice versus study). To examine these relationships, we recruited undergraduate students from an introductory geology course. Prior to the course modules on rock classification, students self-rated their knowledge, took a prior knowledge test, classified rock exemplars by completing study or retrieval practice trials, and made study order choices. Students then completed assignments and attended lectures in their geology course on igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. Next, students self-rated their knowledge, took a new prior knowledge test, completed study or retrieval practice trials, made study order decisions, took final classification tests, and self-reported beliefs about study order choices. Even though students' knowledge increased after course modules on rock identification, and most students believed that domain knowledge impacts study decisions, prior knowledge did not predict students' switch decisions. In contrast, students who completed retrieval practice trials made substantially more switch decisions (i.e., interleaved study) than did students who completed study trials.

Older and younger adults' revision of health misconceptions.

Although ample younger adult research has detailed effective strategies for revising misconceptions, research with older adults is less extensive. Older adults may be less able to correct errors in knowledge due to age-related changes in cognition, but it is also possible that older adults' revision of misconceptions has been limited by methodologies which do not provide adequate support for correction. In two experiments, we examined how older and younger adults revise health-related misconceptions when provided with cognitive support in the form of explicit detailed feedback and an immediate test. Older and younger adults in Experiment 1 answered true/false health statements, received feedback with a detailed explanation of the correct response, took an additional test on the same statements immediately following the initial test, and completed a final test 1-week later. Older and younger adults corrected a similar proportion of misconceptions immediately and maintained most of those revisions across a 1-week delay. In Experiment 2, older adults corrected the same proportion of misconceptions on the final test regardless of whether or not they received a test immediately following feedback. Overall, older adults revised health misconceptions as effectively as did younger adults but variables influencing correction (e.g., belief in feedback) may differ.