Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice
In two experiments, learners studied word pairs one or two times and took a final cued recall test. They studied each pair upon its initial presentation and decided whether they would restudy it later, take a practice test on it later (retrieval practice), or forego all further practice with the pai...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Memory & cognition 2018-10, Vol.46 (7), p.1164-1177 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1177 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1164 |
container_title | Memory & cognition |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Toppino, Thomas C. LaVan, Melissa H. Iaconelli, Ryan T. |
description | In two experiments, learners studied word pairs one or two times and took a final cued recall test. They studied each pair upon its initial presentation and decided whether they would restudy it later, take a practice test on it later (retrieval practice), or forego all further practice with the pair. Whether learners preferred restudying or testing depended upon conditions. Regardless of whether practice tests were followed by feedback, they chose to take practice tests relatively more often when items were easy and the lag or spacing interval between the first and second occurrence was short, whereas they chose to restudy relatively more when items were hard and the lag was long. That is, they preferred testing under conditions in which successful retrieval on the practice test was likely. In Experiment
2
, we varied the number of points each item was worth if recalled on the final test. A high point value led to a marked increase in both the preference for testing when the lag was short and the preference for restudying when the lag was long. Results support the hypothesis that learners appreciate at some level that retrieval practice can be a more effective learning strategy than restudying. However, they appear to believe that successful retrieval is necessary to reap the benefits of retrieval practice. As a consequence, their tendency to choose testing is influenced by conditions (item difficulty and spacing interval) that affect the likelihood of successful practice-test retrieval. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3758/s13421-018-0828-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2047253793</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2047253793</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-46d464309f84ff771467e753bdd181b5d9b9339794ca9e6c9931c6789a08138d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU-LFDEQxYMo7uzoB_AiAS9eovnbSbzJoK6w4kXBW8gk1bO99CRjkh6Yb2-GWRUET1VU_d6rgofQC0bfCK3M28qE5IxQZgg13BD-CK2YEpwoK4fHaEWppURR_uMKXdd6TylVyg5P0RW3RvaWrtDpCzQf8i5NbToCDjm1kmc8JVxhHkmB3TL7BhHP4Eua0u4d3uQUO51TxX4cIbQ-xe2ui-_yFADnEReobYmn8-IIpS61T1qZ4OhnfCi-SwI8Q09GP1d4_lDX6PvHD982N-T266fPm_e3JEimGpFDlIMU1I5GjqPWTA4atBLbGJlhWxXt1gphtZXBWxiCtYKFQRvrqWHCRLFGry--h5J_Lv0xt59qgHn2CfJSHadScyV0d1mjV_-g93kpqX_nOFNSUWkF7RS7UKHkWguM7lCmvS8nx6g75-Iuubieizvn4njXvHxwXrZ7iH8Uv4PoAL8Ata_SDsrf0_93_QVDzplW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2154504930</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Toppino, Thomas C. ; LaVan, Melissa H. ; Iaconelli, Ryan T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Toppino, Thomas C. ; LaVan, Melissa H. ; Iaconelli, Ryan T.</creatorcontrib><description>In two experiments, learners studied word pairs one or two times and took a final cued recall test. They studied each pair upon its initial presentation and decided whether they would restudy it later, take a practice test on it later (retrieval practice), or forego all further practice with the pair. Whether learners preferred restudying or testing depended upon conditions. Regardless of whether practice tests were followed by feedback, they chose to take practice tests relatively more often when items were easy and the lag or spacing interval between the first and second occurrence was short, whereas they chose to restudy relatively more when items were hard and the lag was long. That is, they preferred testing under conditions in which successful retrieval on the practice test was likely. In Experiment
2
, we varied the number of points each item was worth if recalled on the final test. A high point value led to a marked increase in both the preference for testing when the lag was short and the preference for restudying when the lag was long. Results support the hypothesis that learners appreciate at some level that retrieval practice can be a more effective learning strategy than restudying. However, they appear to believe that successful retrieval is necessary to reap the benefits of retrieval practice. As a consequence, their tendency to choose testing is influenced by conditions (item difficulty and spacing interval) that affect the likelihood of successful practice-test retrieval.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-502X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-5946</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0828-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29845590</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Choice Behavior - physiology ; Choice learning ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive Psychology ; Executive Function - physiology ; Experimental psychology ; Feedback ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Laboratories ; Memory ; Mental Recall - physiology ; Metacognition ; Metacognition - physiology ; Polls & surveys ; Practice (Psychology) ; Psychology ; Retention ; Self-Control ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Memory & cognition, 2018-10, Vol.46 (7), p.1164-1177</ispartof><rights>Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media Oct 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-46d464309f84ff771467e753bdd181b5d9b9339794ca9e6c9931c6789a08138d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-46d464309f84ff771467e753bdd181b5d9b9339794ca9e6c9931c6789a08138d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13421-018-0828-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13421-018-0828-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930,41493,42562,51324</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29845590$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Toppino, Thomas C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LaVan, Melissa H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iaconelli, Ryan T.</creatorcontrib><title>Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice</title><title>Memory & cognition</title><addtitle>Mem Cogn</addtitle><addtitle>Mem Cognit</addtitle><description>In two experiments, learners studied word pairs one or two times and took a final cued recall test. They studied each pair upon its initial presentation and decided whether they would restudy it later, take a practice test on it later (retrieval practice), or forego all further practice with the pair. Whether learners preferred restudying or testing depended upon conditions. Regardless of whether practice tests were followed by feedback, they chose to take practice tests relatively more often when items were easy and the lag or spacing interval between the first and second occurrence was short, whereas they chose to restudy relatively more when items were hard and the lag was long. That is, they preferred testing under conditions in which successful retrieval on the practice test was likely. In Experiment
2
, we varied the number of points each item was worth if recalled on the final test. A high point value led to a marked increase in both the preference for testing when the lag was short and the preference for restudying when the lag was long. Results support the hypothesis that learners appreciate at some level that retrieval practice can be a more effective learning strategy than restudying. However, they appear to believe that successful retrieval is necessary to reap the benefits of retrieval practice. As a consequence, their tendency to choose testing is influenced by conditions (item difficulty and spacing interval) that affect the likelihood of successful practice-test retrieval.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Choice Behavior - physiology</subject><subject>Choice learning</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Executive Function - physiology</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Mental Recall - physiology</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>Metacognition - physiology</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Practice (Psychology)</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Retention</subject><subject>Self-Control</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0090-502X</issn><issn>1532-5946</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU-LFDEQxYMo7uzoB_AiAS9eovnbSbzJoK6w4kXBW8gk1bO99CRjkh6Yb2-GWRUET1VU_d6rgofQC0bfCK3M28qE5IxQZgg13BD-CK2YEpwoK4fHaEWppURR_uMKXdd6TylVyg5P0RW3RvaWrtDpCzQf8i5NbToCDjm1kmc8JVxhHkmB3TL7BhHP4Eua0u4d3uQUO51TxX4cIbQ-xe2ui-_yFADnEReobYmn8-IIpS61T1qZ4OhnfCi-SwI8Q09GP1d4_lDX6PvHD982N-T266fPm_e3JEimGpFDlIMU1I5GjqPWTA4atBLbGJlhWxXt1gphtZXBWxiCtYKFQRvrqWHCRLFGry--h5J_Lv0xt59qgHn2CfJSHadScyV0d1mjV_-g93kpqX_nOFNSUWkF7RS7UKHkWguM7lCmvS8nx6g75-Iuubieizvn4njXvHxwXrZ7iH8Uv4PoAL8Ata_SDsrf0_93_QVDzplW</recordid><startdate>20181001</startdate><enddate>20181001</enddate><creator>Toppino, Thomas C.</creator><creator>LaVan, Melissa H.</creator><creator>Iaconelli, Ryan T.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181001</creationdate><title>Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice</title><author>Toppino, Thomas C. ; LaVan, Melissa H. ; Iaconelli, Ryan T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-46d464309f84ff771467e753bdd181b5d9b9339794ca9e6c9931c6789a08138d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Choice Behavior - physiology</topic><topic>Choice learning</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Executive Function - physiology</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Mental Recall - physiology</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>Metacognition - physiology</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Practice (Psychology)</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Retention</topic><topic>Self-Control</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Toppino, Thomas C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LaVan, Melissa H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iaconelli, Ryan T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Memory & cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Toppino, Thomas C.</au><au>LaVan, Melissa H.</au><au>Iaconelli, Ryan T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice</atitle><jtitle>Memory & cognition</jtitle><stitle>Mem Cogn</stitle><addtitle>Mem Cognit</addtitle><date>2018-10-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1164</spage><epage>1177</epage><pages>1164-1177</pages><issn>0090-502X</issn><eissn>1532-5946</eissn><abstract>In two experiments, learners studied word pairs one or two times and took a final cued recall test. They studied each pair upon its initial presentation and decided whether they would restudy it later, take a practice test on it later (retrieval practice), or forego all further practice with the pair. Whether learners preferred restudying or testing depended upon conditions. Regardless of whether practice tests were followed by feedback, they chose to take practice tests relatively more often when items were easy and the lag or spacing interval between the first and second occurrence was short, whereas they chose to restudy relatively more when items were hard and the lag was long. That is, they preferred testing under conditions in which successful retrieval on the practice test was likely. In Experiment
2
, we varied the number of points each item was worth if recalled on the final test. A high point value led to a marked increase in both the preference for testing when the lag was short and the preference for restudying when the lag was long. Results support the hypothesis that learners appreciate at some level that retrieval practice can be a more effective learning strategy than restudying. However, they appear to believe that successful retrieval is necessary to reap the benefits of retrieval practice. As a consequence, their tendency to choose testing is influenced by conditions (item difficulty and spacing interval) that affect the likelihood of successful practice-test retrieval.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>29845590</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13421-018-0828-2</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0090-502X |
ispartof | Memory & cognition, 2018-10, Vol.46 (7), p.1164-1177 |
issn | 0090-502X 1532-5946 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2047253793 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
subjects | Adult Behavioral Science and Psychology Choice Behavior - physiology Choice learning Cognition & reasoning Cognitive Psychology Executive Function - physiology Experimental psychology Feedback Humans Hypotheses Laboratories Memory Mental Recall - physiology Metacognition Metacognition - physiology Polls & surveys Practice (Psychology) Psychology Retention Self-Control Young Adult |
title | Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T07%3A38%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Metacognitive%20control%20in%20self-regulated%20learning:%20Conditions%20affecting%20the%20choice%20of%20restudying%20versus%20retrieval%20practice&rft.jtitle=Memory%20&%20cognition&rft.au=Toppino,%20Thomas%20C.&rft.date=2018-10-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1164&rft.epage=1177&rft.pages=1164-1177&rft.issn=0090-502X&rft.eissn=1532-5946&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13421-018-0828-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2047253793%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2154504930&rft_id=info:pmid/29845590&rfr_iscdi=true |