Search

Recent studies suggest that making judgments of learning (JOLs)—self-assessment of current learning status—may not merely be a neutral cognitive process, but can directly improve learning through what is called ‘JOL reactivity’. This study investigated whether making JOLs can facilitate the learning of previously studied materials (backward effect) and newly studied materials (forward effect) in inductive learning. We also examined how this effect varies depending on whether a JOL is accompanied by a retrieval attempt. Across three experiments, participants learned about various butterfly species presented in two sections (Sections A and B). Some participants made JOLs between Section A and Section B, while others did not, and then all participants took a final transfer test for both sections. In Experiment 1, merely making JOLs did not facilitate learning compared to restudy control, regardless of whether JOLs afforded covert retrieval (target-absent JOL) or not (target-present JOL). However, in Experiment 2, when participants made JOLs combined with overt retrieval prompts (retrieval practice + JOL), they outperformed the other groups in the final transfer test of Section B, showing the forward effect. Experiment 3 further revealed that the act of making JOLs combined with overt retrieval practice was as effective as (but not more than) retrieval practice without JOLs in promoting new learning. Our findings indicate that conventional forms of JOLs do not appear to enhance inductive learning; rather, they underscore the critical role of retrieval in facilitating inductive learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observing category exemplars in an interleaved manner is more beneficial for inductive learning than blocked (massed) presentation, a phenomenon termed the interleaving effect on inductive learning. However, people tend to erroneously believe that massed is more beneficial than interleaved learning, and learners prefer the former during self-regulated learning. We report four experiments designed to investigate whether explicit instructions, which include individual performance feedback and the interleaving effect results from previous research, can (1) correct metacognitive illusions regarding the interleaving effect, (2) promote self-employment of interleaving, and (3) facilitate category learning. In addition, the current study explored (4) whether the intervention effect is long-lasting and (5) transferable to learning of categories in other domains. Experiments 1–4 established the effectiveness of the instruction intervention to enhance metacognitive appreciation of the interleaving effect, to promote self-employment of interleaving, and to facilitate learning of new categories. The intervention effect was long-lasting (at least 24 h; Experiment 2), and transferable to learning of categories in different domains (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings support the practical use of the instruction intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies suggest that testing on prior material enhances subsequent learning of new material. Although such forward testing effect has received extensive empirical support, it is not yet clear how testing facilitates subsequent learning. One possible explanation suggests that interim testing informs learners about the format of an upcoming test and consequently allows them to adopt study strategies in accordance with the anticipated test format. Three experiments investigated whether the beneficial effects of testing are due to learners' expectation with the test format or due to testing experience itself in inductive learning by varying when and how learners were informed about the format of an upcoming test. The results showed that informing learners about the test format via an interim test, but not a pretest, enhanced subsequent learning (experiment 1), and it was effective only when combined with actual test-taking experience (experiment 2). Testing appeared to enhance subsequent learning of new material when learners had an opportunity to evaluate their mastery over previously studied information. Experiment 3 further showed that these beneficial effects of testing were yielded even in the absence of feedback. Taken together, the findings suggest that mere exposure to the test format, not combined with actual testing, is not sufficient to enhance subsequent learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]