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.

I forgot that you existed: Role of memory accessibility in the gender citation gap.

Recent studies have found a citation gap in psychology favoring men. This citation gap is subsequently reflected in differences in h-index scores, a crude measure but important one for impact on career advancement. We examine a potential reason for the gap: that male researchers are more likely to come to mind than female researchers (i.e., a difference in memory accessibility). In a survey, faculty from psychology departments in R1 institutions in the United States listed up to five names they considered experts in their field and up to five names they considered rising stars (defined as pretenure) in their field. Results revealed that the proportion of female experts recalled by women generally matched the percentage of more senior female faculty at R1 institutions, whereas the proportion recalled by men was much lower as compared to this baseline. With rising stars, we observed both underrepresentation of women from male participants and, unexpectedly, overrepresentation of women from female participants, as compared to the percentage of more junior female faculty at R1 institutions. For both experts and rising stars, male names were also more likely to be generated earlier in lists by male respondents, but women did not vary in the order in which they listed women versus men. Despite the differences in recall observed in our data, there was no such gap in name recognition, suggesting that the gap is one of accessibility-who comes to mind. Implications and recommendations for psychology researchers are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Difficulty-as-Improvement: The Courage to Keep Going in the Face of Life's Difficulties.

When a task or goal is hard to think about or do, people can infer that it is a waste of their time (difficulty-as-impossibility) or valuable to them (difficulty-as-importance). Separate from chosen tasks and goals, life can present unchosen difficulties. Building on identity-based motivation theory, people can see these as opportunities for self-betterment (difficulty-as-improvement). People use this language when they recall or communicate about difficulties (autobiographical memories, Study 1; "Common Crawl" corpus, Study 2). Our difficulty mindset measures are culture-general (Australia, Canada, China, India, Iran, New Zealand, Turkey, the United States, Studies 3-15, N = 3,532). People in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD)-er countries slightly agree with difficulty-as-improvement. Religious, spiritual, conservative people, believers in karma and a just world, and people from less-WEIRD countries score higher. People who endorse difficulty-as-importance see themselves as conscientious, virtuous, and leading lives of purpose. So do endorsers of difficulty-as-improvement-who also see themselves as optimists (all scores lower for difficulty-as-impossibility endorsers).

Is Difficulty Mostly About Impossibility? What Difficulty Implies May Be Culturally Variant.

Difficulty can signal low odds (impossibility) and high value (importance). We build on culture-as-situated cognition theory's description of culture-based fluency and disfluency to predict that the culturally fluent meaning of difficulty is culture-bound. For Americans, the culturally fluent understanding of ability is success-with-ease-not-effort, hence difficulty implies low odds of ability. This may disadvantage American institutions and practices-learning requires gaining competence and proficiency through effortful engagement. Indeed, Americans (Studies 1, 3-8; N = 4,141; Study 2, the corpus of English language) associate difficulty with impossibility more than importance. This tendency is not universal. Indian and Chinese cultures imply that difficulty can equally signal low odds and value. Indeed, people from India and China (Studies 9-11, N = 762) are as likely to understand difficulty as being about both. Effects are culture-based; how much people endorse difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility in their own lives did not affect results.

Students Can (Mostly) Recognize Effective Learning, So Why Do They Not Do It?

Cognitive psychology research has emphasized that the strategies that are effective and efficient for fostering long-term retention (e.g., interleaved study, retrieval practice) are often not recognized as effective by students and are infrequently used. In the present studies, we use a mixed-methods approach and challenge the rhetoric that students are entirely unaware of effective learning strategies. We show that whether being asked to describe strategies used by poor-, average-, and high-performing students (Study 1) or being asked to judge vignettes of students using different strategies (Study 2), participants are generally readily able to identify effective strategies: they were able to recognize the efficacy of explanation, pretesting, interpolated retrieval practice, and even some interleaving. Despite their knowledge of these effective strategies, they were still unlikely to report using these strategies themselves. In Studies 2 and 3, we also explore the reasons why students might not use the strategies that they know are effective. Our findings suggest that interventions to improve learners' strategy use might focus less on teaching them about what is effective and more on increasing self-efficacy, reducing the perceived costs, and establishing better habits.

Optimal Learning Under Time Constraints: Empirical and Simulated Trade-offs Between Depth and Breadth of Study.

Learners are often constrained by their available study time, typically having to make a trade-off between depth and breadth of learning. Classic experimental paradigms in memory research treat all items as equally important, but this is unlikely the case in reality. Rather, information varies in importance, and people vary in their ability to distinguish what is more or less important. We test the impact of this trade-off in the study of Graduate Record Examination (GRE)-synonym word pairs. In our empirical Study 1, we split our stimuli set, with some items (focal) being afforded more rounds of retrieval practice than other items (non-focal). All conditions had the same total number of trials (i.e., constant study time), but differed in the number of focal words (breadth) and repetitions (depth). The conditions differed significantly in both mean performance and variance on the day-delayed test. Using this empirical data as a base, we then conducted a simulation (Study 2) modeling depth-breadth trade-offs under various conditions of learner forecasting accuracy and test coverage. In Study 2, we found that a medium-depth medium-breadth strategy was appropriate for most of the learning situations covered by our simulation, but that learners with a well-calibrated understanding of importance may benefit from a more targeted high-depth, low-breadth approach. Our results highlight the complexity of navigating the depth-breadth trade-off. Models of learning strategy optimization will need to account for learner forecasting sensitivity, which itself is likely an interaction between relatively stable individual differences and shifting contextual factors.

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.

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).

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.

How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners' opinions.

The sequencing of exemplars during study can have a large effect on category or concept induction. Counter to learners' intuitions, interleaving exemplars from different categories is often more effective for learning the different underlying categories than is blocking all the exemplars by category (e.g., Kornell & Bjork, 2008). Prior research suggests that blocking and interleaving each support different aspects of induction: Interleaving appears to enhance between-category discrimination, whereas blocking appears to promote the learning of within-category commonalities. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants studied paintings by 12 artists and were asked to induce the different artists' painting styles. We explored whether hybrid schedules can leverage the benefits of both types of schedules, comparing blocked, interleaved, and 3 hybrid schedules-blocked-to-interleaved, interleaved-to-blocked, and miniblocks. The miniblocks and blocked-to-interleaved schedules were as effective, statistically, but not better than pure interleaving. The blocked schedule led to the worst performance. In Experiments 3 and 4, we explored participants' a priori beliefs by having them self-schedule hypothetical future category-learning tasks. Although participants demonstrated some metacognitive sophistication with respect to the relative benefits of blocked and interleaved study, pure interleaving was the least popular schedule, despite its being one of the most, effective schedules for learning. (PsycINFO Database Record

Optimal sequencing during category learning: Testing a dual-learning systems perspective.

Recent studies demonstrate that interleaving the exemplars of different categories, rather than blocking exemplars by category, can enhance inductive learning-the ability to categorize new exemplars-presumably because interleaving affords discriminative contrasts between exemplars from different categories. Consistent with this view, other studies have demonstrated that decreasing between-category similarity and increasing within-category variability can eliminate or even reverse the interleaving benefit. We tested another hypothesis, one based on the dual-learning systems framework-namely, that the optimal schedule for learning categories should depend on an interaction of the cognitive system that mediates learning and the structure of the particular category being learned. Blocking should enhance rule-based category learning, which is mediated by explicit, hypothesis-testing processes, whereas interleaving should enhance information-integration category learning, which is mediated by an implicit, procedural-based learning system. Consistent with this view, we found a crossover interaction between schedule (blocked vs. interleaved) and category structure (rule-based vs. information-integration).

On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit.

Interleaving exemplars of to-be-learned categories-rather than blocking exemplars by category-typically enhances inductive learning. Learners, however, tend to believe the opposite, even after their own performance has benefited from interleaving. In Experiments 1 and 2, the authors examined the influence of 2 factors that they hypothesized contribute to the illusion that blocking enhances inductive learning: Namely, that (a) blocking creates a sense of fluent extraction during study of the features defining a given category, and (b) learners come to the experimental task with a pre-existing belief that blocking instruction by topic is superior to intermixing topics. In Experiments 3-5, the authors attempted to uproot learners' belief in the superiority of blocking through experience-based and theory-based debiasing techniques by (a) providing detailed theory-based information as to why blocking seems better, but is not, and (b) explicitly drawing attention to the link between study schedule and subsequent performance, both of which had only modest effects. Only when they disambiguated test performance on the 2 schedules by separating them (Experiment 6) did the combination of experience- and theory-based debiasing lead a majority of learners to appreciate interleaving. Overall, the results indicate that 3 influences combine to make altering learners' misconceptions difficult: the sense of fluency that can accompany nonoptimal modes of instruction; pre-existing beliefs learners bring to new tasks; and the willingness, even eagerness, to believe that 1 is unique as a learner-that what enhances others' learning differs from what enhances one's own learning. (PsycINFO Database Record

Why does guessing incorrectly enhance, rather than impair, retention?

The finding that trying, and failing, to predict the upcoming to-be-remembered response to a given cue can enhance later recall of that response, relative to studying the intact cue-response pair, is surprising, especially given that the standard paradigm (e.g., Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009) involves allocating what would otherwise be study time to generating an error. In three experiments, we sought to eliminate two potential heuristics that participants might use to aid recall of correct responses on the final test and to explore the effects of interference both at an immediate and at a delayed test. In Experiment 1, by intermixing strongly associated to-be-remembered pairs with weakly associated pairs, we eliminated a potential heuristic participants can use on the final test in the standard version of the paradigm-namely, that really strong associates are incorrect responses. In Experiment 2, by rigging half of the participants' responses to be correct, we eliminated another potential heuristic-namely, that one's initial guesses are virtually always wrong. In Experiment 3, we examined whether participants' ability to remember-and discriminate between-their incorrect guesses and correct responses would be lost after a 48-h delay, when source memory should be reduced. Across all experiments, we continued to find a robust benefit of trying to guess to-be-learned responses, even when incorrect, versus studying intact cue-response pairs. The benefits of making incorrect guesses are not an artifact of the paradigm, nor are they limited to short retention intervals.

Type I error inflation in the traditional by-participant analysis to metamemory accuracy: a generalized mixed-effects model perspective.

In order to examine metacognitive accuracy (i.e., the relationship between metacognitive judgment and memory performance), researchers often rely on by-participant analysis, where metacognitive accuracy (e.g., resolution, as measured by the gamma coefficient or signal detection measures) is computed for each participant and the computed values are entered into group-level statistical tests such as the t test. In the current work, we argue that the by-participant analysis, regardless of the accuracy measurements used, would produce a substantial inflation of Type I error rates when a random item effect is present. A mixed-effects model is proposed as a way to effectively address the issue, and our simulation studies examining Type I error rates indeed showed superior performance of mixed-effects model analysis as compared to the conventional by-participant analysis. We also present real data applications to illustrate further strengths of mixed-effects model analysis. Our findings imply that caution is needed when using the by-participant analysis, and recommend the mixed-effects model analysis.

Multilevel induction of categories: venomous snakes hijack the learning of lower category levels.

The induction of categories and concepts from examples-which plays an important role in how people come to organize and understand the world-can happen at multiple levels, but how do competing values at these different levels affect learning? Using perceptually rich images of snakes, we asked participants to attend to either the snakes' specific genus or a broader categorization and then tested induction at both levels. We also varied the intrinsic value of the broader categorization (high value: whether the snake was venomous; low value: whether it was tropical). We found an interaction between study instruction and intrinsic value: Participants in the low-value condition were better able to induce the level they were instructed to attend to (i.e., genus or broader category) than to induce the level they were not instructed to attend to, whereas participants in the high-value condition, regardless of the level of categorization they were instructed to attend to, were significantly better at learning the broad categorization (for them, whether the snake was venomous) than were participants in the low-value condition. Our results suggest that intrinsically valuable features can disrupt the intentional learning of other, task-relevant information, but enhance the incidental learning of the same information.

Do students think that difficult or valuable materials should be restudied sooner rather than later?

Despite the clear long-term benefits of spaced practice, students and teachers often choose massed practice. Whether learners actually fail to appreciate the benefits of spacing is, however, open to question. Early studies (e.g., Zechmeister & Shaughnessy, 1980) found that participants' judgments of learning were higher after massed than after spaced repetitions, but more recent studies have found that participants, when allowed to choose between restudying right away and restudying later, tend to choose later, apparently reflecting an appreciation for the benefits of spacing. In these recent studies, however, choosing to restudy later also meant restudying closer to the final test, leaving open the question of what was driving participants' choices. In addition, the choice confronting participants has typically been between getting a spaced and truly massed repetition, whereas in real-world learning contexts the choice is often between a short, but not immediate, spacing interval and a longer one. In our research, we controlled final retention interval and asked participants to choose between restudying word pairs after either a relatively short (but not truly massed) interval or a longer interval. We found that participants had a clear preference for restudying higher priority (more difficult or more valuable) items sooner rather than later, even when doing so was not the most effective option. Thus, previous findings showing a preference for spaced repetition do not extend to a context in which the shorter spacing interval is substantially longer than true massing, and they may merely reflect a preference to restudy closer to the test.