Smartphone-based study reminders can be a double-edged sword.

Reminders are a popular feature in smartphone apps designed to promote desirable behaviors that are best performed regularly. But can they also promote students' regular studying? In the present study with 85 lower secondary school students aged 10-12, we combined a smartphone-based between- and within-person experimental manipulation with logfile data of a vocabulary learning app. Students were scheduled to receive reminders on 16 days during the 36-day intervention period. Findings suggest that reminders can be a double-edged sword. The within-person experimental manipulation allowed a comparison of study probability on days with and without reminders. Students were more likely to study on days they received a reminder compared to days when they did not receive a reminder. However, when compared to a control group that never received reminders, the effect was not due to students studying more frequently on days with reminders. Instead, they studied less frequently on days without reminders than students in the control group. This effect increased over the study period, with students becoming increasingly less likely to study on days without reminders. Taken together, these results suggest a detrimental side effect of reminders: students become overly reliant on them.

Test Anxiety Does Not Predict Exam Performance When Knowledge Is Controlled For: Strong Evidence Against the Interference Hypothesis of Test Anxiety.

Do test-anxious students perform worse in exam situations than their knowledge would otherwise allow? We analyzed data from 309 medical students who prepared for a high-stakes exam using a digital learning platform. Using log files from the learning platform, we assessed students' level of knowledge throughout the exam-preparation phase and their average performance in mock exams that were completed shortly before the final exam. The results showed that test anxiety did not predict exam performance over and above students' knowledge level as assessed in the mock exams or during the exam-preparation phase. Leveraging additional ambulatory assessment data from the exam-preparation phase, we found that high trait test anxiety predicted smaller gains in knowledge over the exam-preparation phase. Taken together, these findings are incompatible with the hypothesis that test anxiety interferes with the retrieval of previously learned knowledge during the exam.

Cognitive Prerequisites for Generative Learning: Why Some Learning Strategies Are More Effective Than Others.

This study examined age-related differences in the effectiveness of two generative learning strategies (GLSs). Twenty-five children aged 9-11 and 25 university students aged 17-29 performed a facts learning task in which they had to generate either a prediction or an example before seeing the correct result. We found a significant Age × Learning Strategy interaction, with children remembering more facts after generating predictions rather than examples, whereas both strategies were similarly effective in adults. Pupillary data indicated that predictions stimulated surprise, whereas the effectiveness of example-based learning correlated with children's analogical reasoning abilities. These findings suggest that there are different cognitive prerequisites for different GLSs, which results in varying degrees of strategy effectiveness by age.

Being proven wrong elicits learning in children - but only in those with higher executive function skills.

This study investigated whether prompting children to generate predictions about an outcome facilitates activation of prior knowledge and improves belief revision. 51 children aged 9-12 were tested on two experimental tasks in which generating a prediction was compared to closely matched control conditions, as well as on a test of executive functions (EF). In Experiment 1, we showed that children exhibited a pupillary surprise response to events that they had predicted incorrectly, hypothesized to reflect the transient release of noradrenaline in response to cognitive conflict. However, children's surprise response was not associated with better belief revision, in contrast to a previous study involving adults. Experiment 2 revealed that, while generating predictions helped children activate their prior knowledge, only those with better inhibitory control skills learned from incorrectly predicted outcomes. Together, these results suggest that good inhibitory control skills are needed for learning through cognitive conflict. Thus, generating predictions benefits learning - but only among children with sufficient EF capacities to harness surprise for revising their beliefs.

Lighting the wick in the candle of learning: generating a prediction stimulates curiosity.

Curiosity stimulates learning. We tested whether curiosity itself can be stimulated-not by extrinsic rewards but by an intrinsic desire to know whether a prediction holds true. Participants performed a numerical-facts learning task in which they had to generate either a prediction or an example before rating their curiosity and seeing the correct answer. More facts received high-curiosity ratings in the prediction condition, which indicates that generating predictions stimulated curiosity. In turn, high curiosity, compared with low curiosity, was associated with better memory for the correct answer. Concurrent pupillary data revealed that higher curiosity was associated with larger pupil dilation during anticipation of the correct answer. Pupil dilation was further enhanced when participants generated a prediction rather than an example, both during anticipation of the correct answer and in response to seeing it. These results suggest that generating a prediction stimulates curiosity by increasing the relevance of the knowledge gap.