Literature DB >> 28337646

The puzzle of study time allocation for the most challenging items.

Monika Undorf1, Rakefet Ackerman2.   

Abstract

Learners often allocate more study time to challenging items than to easier ones. Nevertheless, both predicted and actual memory performance are typically worse for difficult than for easier items. The resulting inverse relations between people's predictions of their memory performance (judgments of learning; JOLs) and self-paced study time (ST) are often explained by bottom-up, data-driven ST allocation that is based on fluency. However, we demonstrate robust inverted U-shaped relations between JOLs and ST that cannot be explained by data-driven ST allocation alone. Consequently, we explored how two models of top-down, strategic ST allocation account for curvilinear JOL-ST relations. First, according to the Region of Proximal Learning model, people stop quickly on items for which they experience too little progress in learning. Second, according to the Diminishing Criterion Model, people set a time limit and stop studying when this time limit is reached. In three experiments, we manipulated motivation with different methods and examined which model best described JOL-ST relations. Consistent with the Diminishing Criterion Model but not with the Region of Proximal Learning model, results revealed that curvilinearity was due to people setting a time limit.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Judgments of learning; Metamemory; Monitoring and control; Self-regulation; Strategic behavior

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28337646     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1261-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  10 in total

1.  The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior.

Authors:  Asher Koriat; Hilit Ma'ayan; Ravit Nussinson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2006-02

2.  Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe; Bridgid Finn
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-02

3.  The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment.

Authors:  Rakefet Ackerman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2013-12-23

4.  Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text.

Authors:  Jeri L Little; Mark A McDaniel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-01

5.  Judgments of learning reflect encoding fluency: conclusive evidence for the ease-of-processing hypothesis.

Authors:  Monika Undorf; Edgar Erdfelder
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect".

Authors:  T O Nelson; R J Leonesio
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Differential allocation of study time: incomplete compensation for the difficulty of the materials.

Authors:  S Pelegrina; M T Bajo; F Justicia
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2000-11

8.  Aging and metamemory: the roles of relatedness and imagery.

Authors:  J C Rabinowitz; B P Ackerman; F I Craik; J L Hinchley
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1982-11

9.  Metacognitive Judgments and Control of Study.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-06-01

10.  Separation of encoding fluency and item difficulty effects on judgements of learning.

Authors:  Monika Undorf; Edgar Erdfelder
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 2.143

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Agency attributions of mental effort during self-regulated learning.

Authors:  Asher Koriat
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-04

2.  Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning.

Authors:  Monika Undorf; Anke Söllner; Arndt Bröder
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-05

3.  Judgements of effort as a function of post-trial versus post-task elicitation.

Authors:  Michelle Ashburner; Evan F Risko
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 2.143

4.  Second Chances in Learning: Does a Resit Prospect Lower Study-Time Investments on a First Test?

Authors:  Rob Nijenkamp; Mark R Nieuwenstein; Ritske de Jong; Monicque M Lorist
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2022-01-06

5.  High fluency can improve recognition sensitivity based on learned metacognitive expectations.

Authors:  Sarah Esser; Clarissa Lustig; Hilde Haider
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-20
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.