Zwei auf einen Streich?

Lernaufgaben, die Lernende zu Wissenskonstruktionsaktivitäten wie beispielsweise dem Organisieren und Elaborieren von Lerninhalten anregen, fördern das Verständnis. Hinsichtlich der Förderung des langfristigen Behaltens des erworbenen Wissens sind auf Konstruktion zielende Lernaufgaben jedoch nicht optimal – empirische Studien deuten an, dass bessere Konsolidierungseffekte mit Lernaufgaben zu erreichen sind, die Lernende zu Abrufübung anregen. Vor diesem Hintergrund sind in den letzten Jahren einige Bemühungen initiiert worden, Abrufübung und damit eine starke Konsolidierungsfunktion auch im Kontext von auf Konstruktion zielenden Lernaufgaben zu realisieren. Einer der in diesem Rahmen eingeschlagenen Wege ist es, auf Konstruktion zielende Lernaufgaben in einem sogenannten $\textit {Closed-Book-Format}$ zu implementieren, bei dem die Lernenden, während sie die Lernaufgaben bearbeiten, nicht mehr auf die zugrundeliegenden Lernmaterialien zugreifen können und entsprechend die zur Bearbeitung der Lernaufgaben benötigten Lerninhalte aus dem Gedächtnis abrufen müssen. Ein Closed-Book-Format von auf Konstruktion zielenden Lernaufgaben verspricht im Grunde also, dass $\it zwei$ zentrale Lernaktivitäten (Wissenskonstruktion und Abrufübung) $\textit {auf einen Streich}$, also mit $\it einer$ Lernaufgabe angeregt werden. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Befundlage zu diesem Closed-Book-Format beleuchtet und es werden zentrale offene Fragen für die zukünftige Forschung zu diesem Format herausgearbeitet. Zudem wird diskutiert, welche Vorzüge und Nachteile ein Closed-Book-Format, bei dem Abrufübung und Wissenskonstruktion im Grunde simultan angeregt werden, gegenüber einer sequentiellen Anregung von Wissenskonstruktion und Abrufübung haben könnte.Learning tasks that engage learners in generative learning activities such as organization and elaboration foster comprehension. In terms of fostering long-term retention, however, generative learning tasks are not optimal—learning tasks that engage learners in practicing retrieval from memory have been shown to yield better consolidation effects. Against this background, in recent years several attempts that aimed at realizing substantial memory consolidation in generative learning tasks have been conducted. One of the approaches that has been pursued in this context is to implement generative learning tasks in a $\textit {closed-book format}$, in which the learners can no longer access the learning material while they are working on the generative learning tasks and accordingly have to retrieve the idea units that are required for working on the generative learning tasks from memory. A closed-book format of generative learning tasks basically promises that two types of important learning activities (generative learning activities and retrieval practice) are stimulated at once, i.e. with one learning task. In this paper, the findings on this closed-book format of generative learning tasks are examined and key open questions for future research on this format are identified. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a closed-book format, in which retrieval practice and generative learning activities are basically stimulated simultaneously, over a sequential stimulation of generative learning and retrieval practice

Expert example standards but not idea unit standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples

Generating own examples for previously encountered new concepts is a common and highly effective learning activity, at least when the examples are of high quality. Unfortunately, however, students are not able to accurately evaluate the quality of their own examples and instructional support measures such as idea unit standards that have been found to enhance the accuracy of self-evaluations in other learning activities, have turned out to be ineffective in example generation. Hence, at least when learners generate examples in self-regulated learning settings in which they scarcely receive instructor feedback, they cannot take beneficial regulation decisions concerning when to continue and when to stop investing effort in example generation. The present study aimed at investigating the benefits of a relatively parsimonious means to enhance judgment accuracy in example generation tasks, i.e. the provision of expert examples as external standards. For this purpose, in a 2×2 factorial experiment we varied whether $\it N$ = 131 university students were supported by expert example standards (with vs. without) and idea unit standards (with vs. without) in evaluating the quality of self-generated examples that illustrated new declarative concepts. We found that the provision of expert example standards reduced bias and enhanced absolute judgment accuracy, whereas idea unit standards had no beneficial effects. We conclude that expert example standards are a promising means to enhance judgment accuracy in evaluating the quality of self-generated examples

The keyword effect

Prompting learners to generate keywords after a delay is a promising means to enhance relative judgment accuracy in learning from texts. However, to date, conceptual replications of the keyword effect without the involvement of the researcher who originally proposed it are still scarce. Furthermore, it is unclear whether generating delayed keywords could reduce bias and whether the benefits of generating delayed keywords could be optimized by having learners compare their keywords with expert ones. Against this background, we conducted an experiment with $\it N$ = 109 university students who read four expository texts and then were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (a) Generation of keywords after reading, (b) generation of keywords after reading and a comparison with external standards in the form of expert keywords, (c) no keyword generation (control condition). We found that generating delayed keywords significantly increased relative accuracy but did not reduce bias. Furthermore, we found that the comparison with expert keywords enhanced relative accuracy beyond the established keyword effect. However, we also found that the comparison with expert keywords increased bias (here: underconfidence). Overall, these findings suggest that generating and comparing keywords is an effective means to enhance relative accuracy

Does providing external standards after keyword generation improve metacomprehension accuracy and regulation for high school students?

Our study investigated whether comparing expert keywords after learners have generated keywords on their own improves relative metacomprehension accuracy for high school students – as found by $\textbf {Waldeyer and Roelle (2021)}$ with university students. Moreover, we analyzed whether this potential improvement in metacomprehension accuracy in turn affects regulation decisions. We conducted an experiment with 142 high school students who read three expository texts and then were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: (a) generation of keywords after reading and a comparison with expert keywords, or (b) generation of keywords after reading without comparison. We found that relative metacomprehension accuracy did not differ between the conditions. Also, regulation decisions were not affected by condition. Our findings are discussed with respect to limitations and implications.Verbessern externe Standards nach dem Generieren von Keywords die metakognitive Urteilsgenauigkeit und die Regulation von Schüler_innen? Die vorliegende Studie untersucht, ob der förderliche Effekt des Abgleichens mit Expertenkeywords nach dem Generieren eigener Keywords, den $\textbf {Waldeyer and Roelle (2021)}$ bezogen auf die relative Urteilsgenauigkeit Studierender gefunden haben, auf Schüler_innen übetragen werden kann. Zudem wird untersucht, inwiefern sich dieser Effekt auf die anschließende Regulationsentscheidung der Schüler_innen auswirkt. Zur Überprüfung dieser Fragen wurde ein Experiment mit $\it N$ = 142 Schüler_innen durchgeführt, die einer der folgenden Bedingungen zugeordnet wurden: (a) Generieren von Keywords nach dem Lesen von Texten mit anschließendem Abgleich mit Expertenkeywords, oder (b) Generieren von Keywords nach dem Lesen von Texten ohne anschließenden Abgleich mit Expertenkeywords. Es zeigte sich kein Unterschied bezogen auf die relative Urteilsgenauigkeit zwischen den beiden Bedingungen sowie kein Unterschied bezogen auf die anschließenden Regulationsentscheidung. Die Ergebnisse werden hinsichtlich ihrer Limitationen und Implikationen diskutiert

Testing is more desirable when it is adaptive and still desirable when compared to note-taking

Testing is a well-established desirable difficulty. Yet there are still some open issues regarding the benefits of testing that need to be addressed. First, the possibility to increase its benefits by adapting the sequence of test questions to the learners’ level of knowledge has scarcely been explored. In view of theories that emphasize the benefits of adapting learning tasks to learner knowledge, it is reasonable to assume that the common practice of providing all learners with the same test questions is not optimal. Second, it is an open question as to whether the testing effect prevails if stronger control conditions than the typical restudy condition are used. We addressed these issues in an experiment with $\it N$ = 200 university students who were randomly assigned to (a) adaptive testing, (b) non-adaptive testing, or note-taking (c) without or (d) with focus guidance. In an initial study phase, all participants watched an e-lecture. Afterward, they processed its content according to their assigned conditions. One week later, all learners took a posttest. As main results, we found that adaptive testing yielded higher learning outcomes than non-adaptive testing. These benefits were mediated by the adaptive learners’ higher testing performance and lower perceived cognitive demand during testing. Furthermore, we found that both testing groups outperformed the notetaking groups. Jointly, our results show that the benefits of testing can be enhanced by adapting the sequence of test questions to learners’ knowledge and that testing can be more effective than note-taking

Example-Based Learning: Should Learners Receive Closed-Book or Open-Book Self-Explanation Prompts?

In learning from examples, students are often first provided with basic instructional explanations of new principles and concepts and second with examples thereof. In this sequence, it is important that learners self-explain by generating links between the basic instructional explanations’ content and the examples. Therefore, it is well established that learners receive self-explanation prompts. However, there is hardly any research on whether these prompts should be provided in a closed-book format - in which learners cannot access the basic instructional explanations during self-explaining and thus have to retrieve the main content of the instructional explanations that is needed to explain the examples from memory (i.e., retrieval practice) - or in an open-book format in which learners can access the instructional explanations during self-explaining. In two experiments, we varied whether learners received closed- or open-book self-explanation prompts. We also varied whether learners were prompted to actively process the main content of the basic instructional explanations before they proceeded to the self-explanation prompts. When the learners were not prompted to actively process the basic instructional explanations, closed-book prompts yielded detrimental effects on immediate and delayed (1 week) posttest performance. When the learners were prompted to actively process the basic instructional explanations beforehand, closed-book self-explanation prompts were not less beneficial than open-book prompts regarding performance on a delayed posttest. We conclude that at least when the retention interval does not exceed 1 week, closed-book self-explanation prompts do not entail an added value and can even be harmful in comparison to open-book ones

How did it get so late so soon?

Time management is regarded as an important prerequisite for effective and efficient learning in higher education. However, university students' time management frequently proves to be deficient, especially with freshman students, who can therefore benefit from appropriate time management interventions. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of an intervention focused on imparting time management knowledge with those of an intervention focused on time management practice. We conducted an experiment with $\it N$ = 118 university students who took part in a course over the duration of one semester. Participants with a time management deficit at the beginning of the semester ($\it n$ = 88) were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (a) time management knowledge, (b) time management practice, (c) control group. Exam scores at the end of the semester were considered as an indicator of participants' academic performance. The results showed significant time management improvements for both time management intervention groups, but the time management practice group appeared superior. Academic performance was better in the time management practice group also, although the results were inconsistent. The effect of time management practice on academic performance was mediated by students' time management skills

Combining retrieval practice and generative learning in educational contexts

Engaging learners in practicing the retrieval of learned information fosters the consolidation of learners’ mental representations and hence long-term retention. Retrieval practice research has enriched the instructional design literature by providing a wealth of evidence for these benefits of retrieval-based learning and thus emphasizing the value of means to consolidate knowledge. The present article makes the case that a fruitful next step could be to focus on the interplay between retrieval practice and generative activities. Rather than consolidating mental representations, generative activities should have as their main function the construction of coherent mental representations. Hence, from a theoretical perspective, generative activities and retrieval practice should functionally complement each other; hence, combinations of both activities might be particularly suitable to promote lasting learning. Given the challenge to beneficially combine these activities, we discuss open questions that could substantially advance both the retrieval practice and the generative learning field.Das Üben des Abrufs von zuvor gelernten Informationen aus dem Gedächtnis fördert die Konsolidierung mentaler Repräsentationen und damit das langfristige Behalten. Durch eine Fülle an Belegen für diese Vorteile des abrufbasierten Lernens und die Betonung des Wertes von Maßnahmen zur Konsolidierung von Wissen, hat die Forschung zu Abrufübungen die Instruktionsdesignforschung deutlich bereichert. In dem vorliegenden Artikel argumentieren wir, dass ein sinnvoller nächster Schritt darin bestehen könnte, das Zusammenspiel zwischen Abrufübungen und generativen Lernaktivitäten zu untersuchen. Anstatt mentale Repräsentationen zu konsolidieren, besteht die Hauptfunktion von generativen Lernaktivitäten im Aufbau kohärenter mentaler Repräsentationen. Aus theoretischer Sicht sollten sich also generative Aktivitäten und Abrufübungen funktional ergänzen, so dass Kombinationen beider Arten von Aktivitäten besonders geeignet sein könnten, um nachhaltiges Lernen zu fördern. Angesichts der Herausforderung, diese Aktivitäten sinnvoll zu kombinieren, diskutieren wir offene Fragen, die sowohl die Forschung zu Abrufübungen als auch das Feld des generativen Lernens wesentlich voranbringen könnten