Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability

The underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect is a common finding in calibration studies concerned with judgments of learning (JOLs) elicited on a percentage scale. The UWP pattern is present when, in a procedure consisting of multiple study-test cycles, mean scale JOLs underestimate mean recall performance on cycle 2 and beyond. Although this pattern is present both for items recalled and unrecalled on the preceding cycle, to date research has concentrated mostly on the sources of UWP for the latter type of items. The present study aimed at bridging this gap. In three experiments, we examined calibration on the third of three cycles. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated the typical pattern of higher recall and scale JOLs for previously recalled items compared to unrecalled ones. More important, they also revealed that even though the UWP effect was found for both items previously recalled once and twice, its magnitude was greater for the former class of items. Experiments 2 and 3, which employed a binary betting task and a binary 0/100% JOL task, respectively, demonstrated that people can accurately predict future recall for previously recalled items with binary decisions. In both experiments, the UWP effect was absent both for items recalled once and twice. We suggest that the sensitivity of scale JOLs, but not binary judgments, to the number of previous recall successes strengthens the claim of Hanczakowski, Zawadzka, Pasek, and Higham (2013) that scale JOLs reflect confidence in, rather than the subjective probability of, future recall

Weighing up Exercises on Phrasal Verbs: Retrieval Versus Trial-And-Error Practices

EFL textbooks and internet resources exhibit various formats and implementations of exercises on phrasal verbs. The experimental study reported here examines whether some of these might be more effective than others. EFL learners at a university in Japan were randomly assigned to four treatment groups. Two groups were presented first with phrasal verbs and their meaning before they were prompted to retrieve the particles from memory. The difference between these two retrieval groups was that one group studied and then retrieved items one at a time, while the other group studied and retrieved them in sets. The two other groups received the exercises as trial-and-error events, where participants were prompted to guess the particles and were subsequently provided with the correct response. One group was given immediate feedback on each item, while the other group tackled sets of 14 items before receiving feedback. The effectiveness of these exercise implementations was compared through an immediate and a 1-week delayed post-test. The best test scores were obtained when the exercises had served the purpose of retrieval, although this advantage shrank in the delayed test (where scores were poor regardless of treatment condition). On average 70% of the post-test errors produced by the learners who had tackled the exercises by trial-and-error were duplicates of incorrect responses they had supplied at the exercise stage, which indicates that corrective feedback was often ineffective

The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material

Research has shown that testing during learning can enhance the long-term retention of text material. In two experiments, we investigated the testing effect with a fill-in-the-blank test on the retention of text material. In Experiment 1, using a coherent text, we found no retention benefit of testing compared to a restudy (control) condition. In Experiment 2, text coherence was disrupted by scrambling the order of the sentences from the text. The material was subsequently presented as a list of facts as opposed to connected discourse. For the incoherent version of the text, testing slowed down the rate of forgetting compared to a restudy (control) condition. The results suggest that the connectedness of materials can play an important role in determining the magnitude of testing benefits for long-term retention. Testing with a completion test seems most beneficial for unconnected materials and less so for highly structured materials

Towards an understanding of neuroscience for science educators

Advances in neuroscience have brought new insights to the development of cognitive functions. These data are of considerable interest to educators concerned with how students learn. This review documents some of the recent findings in neuroscience, which is richer in describing cognitive functions than affective aspects of learning. A brief overview is presented here of the techniques used to generate data from imaging and how these findings have the possibility to inform educators. There are implications for considering the impact of neuroscience at all levels of education – from the classroom teacher and practitioner to policy. This relatively new cross-disciplinary area of research implies a need for educators and scientists to engage with each other. What questions are emerging through such dialogues between educators and scientists are likely to shed light on, for example, reward, motivation, working memory, learning difficulties, bilingualism and child development. The sciences of learning are entering a new paradigm

Errorful and errorless learning: The impact of cue–target constraint in learning from errors

The benefits of testing on learning are well described, and attention has recently turned to what happens when errors are elicited during learning: Is testing nonetheless beneficial, or can errors hinder learning? Whilst recent findings have indicated that tests boost learning even if errors are made on every trial, other reports, emphasizing the benefits of errorless learning, have indicated that errors lead to poorer later memory performance. The possibility that this discrepancy is a function of the materials that must be learned-in particular, the relationship between the cues and targets-was addressed here. Cued recall after either a study-only errorless condition or an errorful learning condition was contrasted across cue-target associations, for which the extent to which the target was constrained by the cue was either high or low. Experiment 1 showed that whereas errorful learning led to greater recall for low-constraint stimuli, it led to a significant decrease in recall for high-constraint stimuli. This interaction is thought to reflect the extent to which retrieval is constrained by the cue-target association, as well as by the presence of preexisting semantic associations. The advantage of errorful retrieval for low-constraint stimuli was replicated in Experiment 2, and the interaction with stimulus type was replicated in Experiment 3, even when guesses were randomly designated as being either correct or incorrect. This pattern provides support for inferences derived from reports in which participants made errors on all learning trials, whilst highlighting the impact of material characteristics on the benefits and disadvantages that accrue from errorful learning in episodic memory