Literature DB >> 22103783

Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm.

Jason R Finley1, Aaron S Benjamin.   

Abstract

Three experiments demonstrated learners' abilities to adaptively and qualitatively accommodate their encoding strategies to the demands of an upcoming test. Stimuli were word pairs. In Experiment 1, test expectancy was induced for either cued recall (of targets given cues) or free recall (of targets only) across 4 study-test cycles of the same test format, followed by a final critical cycle featuring either the expected or the unexpected test format. For final tests of both cued and free recall, participants who had expected that test format outperformed those who had not. This disordinal interaction, supported by recognition and self-report data, demonstrated not mere differences in effort based on anticipated test difficulty, but rather qualitative and appropriate differences in encoding strategies based on expected task demands. Participants also came to appropriately modulate metacognitive monitoring (Experiment 2) and study-time allocation (Experiment 3) across study-test cycles. Item and associative recognition performance, as well as self-report data, revealed shifts in encoding strategies across trials; these results were used to characterize and evaluate the different strategies that participants employed for cued versus free recall and to assess the optimality of participants' metacognitive control of encoding strategies. Taken together, these data illustrate a sophisticated form of metacognitive control, in which learners qualitatively shift encoding strategies to match the demands of anticipated tests. (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22103783      PMCID: PMC3433232          DOI: 10.1037/a0026215

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  28 in total

1.  Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention.

Authors:  Karl K Szpunar; Kathleen B McDermott; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-07

2.  How Is Knowledge Generated About Memory Encoding Strategy Effectiveness?

Authors:  Christopher Hertzog; Jodi Price; John Dunlosky
Journal:  Learn Individ Differ       Date:  2008

3.  An experimental analysis of set in rote learning the interaction of learning; instruction and retention performance.

Authors:  L POSTMAN; W O JENKINS
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1948-12

4.  Encoding differences in recognition and recall.

Authors:  S T Carey; R S Lockhart
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1973-09

5.  The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension.

Authors:  Ayanna Kim Thomas; Mark A McDaniel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-06

6.  Confidence intervals for gamma-family measures of ordinal association.

Authors:  Carol M Woods
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-06

7.  Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy.

Authors:  Keith W Thiede; Jennifer Wiley; Thomas D Griffin
Journal:  Br J Educ Psychol       Date:  2011-03-09

8.  The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice.

Authors:  Henry L Roediger; Jeffrey D Karpicke
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-09

9.  Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.

Authors:  Harold Pashler; Mark McDaniel; Doug Rohrer; Robert Bjork
Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest       Date:  2008-12-01

10.  The English Lexicon Project.

Authors:  David A Balota; Melvin J Yap; Michael J Cortese; Keith A Hutchison; Brett Kessler; Bjorn Loftis; James H Neely; Douglas L Nelson; Greg B Simpson; Rebecca Treiman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-08
View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Is memory organized by temporal contiguity?

Authors:  Douglas L Hintzman
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-04

2.  Improving encoding strategies as a function of test knowledge and experience.

Authors:  Benjamin C Storm; Michelle L Hickman; Elizabeth L Bjork
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-05

3.  Cueing others' memories.

Authors:  Jonathan G Tullis; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-05

4.  Cue generation: How learners flexibly support future retrieval.

Authors:  Jonathan G Tullis; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-08

5.  Updating metacognitive control in response to expected retention intervals.

Authors:  Joshua L Fiechter; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-04

6.  Test expectancy and memory for important information.

Authors:  Catherine D Middlebrooks; Kou Murayama; Alan D Castel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  When will bigger be (recalled) better? The influence of category size on JOLs depends on test format.

Authors:  Kathleen L Hourihan; Jonathan G Tullis
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-08

8.  Encoding dynamics in free recall: Examining attention allocation with pupillometry.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Ashley L Miller
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01

9.  Examining the role of context variability in memory for items and associations.

Authors:  William R Aue; Jessica M Fontaine; Amy H Criss
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-08

Review 10.  Measuring Metacognitive Knowledge, Monitoring, and Control in the Pharmacy Classroom and Experiential Settings.

Authors:  Michelle L Rivers; John Dunlosky; Adam M Persky
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.047

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.