{"title":"Examining adaptations in study time allocation and restudy selection as a function of expected test format","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09373-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Previous literature suggests learners can adjust their encoding strategies to match the demands of the expected test format. However, it is unclear whether other forms of metacognitive control, namely, study time allocation and restudy selection, are also sensitive to expected test format. Across four experiments we examined whether learners qualitatively adjust their allocation of study time (Experiment 1) and restudy selections (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3) when expecting a more difficult generative memory test (i.e., cued-recall) as compared to a less difficult non-generative memory test (i.e., forced-choice recognition). Counter to our predictions, we found little evidence that learners shift their study time allocation and restudy selection choices toward easier material when expecting a relatively more difficult cued recall test, even after acquiring experience with each test format. Instead, based on exploratory analyses conducted post-hoc, learners appeared to rely heavily on the success with which they retrieved associated studied information at the time that restudy selections were solicited. Moreover, counter to some extant models of self-regulated learning, learners tended to first choose difficult rather than easy items when making their restudy selections, regardless of expected test format. Together, these novel findings place new constraints on our current understanding of learners’ metacognitive sensitivity to expected test format, and have important implications for current theoretical accounts of self-regulated learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09373-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Previous literature suggests learners can adjust their encoding strategies to match the demands of the expected test format. However, it is unclear whether other forms of metacognitive control, namely, study time allocation and restudy selection, are also sensitive to expected test format. Across four experiments we examined whether learners qualitatively adjust their allocation of study time (Experiment 1) and restudy selections (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3) when expecting a more difficult generative memory test (i.e., cued-recall) as compared to a less difficult non-generative memory test (i.e., forced-choice recognition). Counter to our predictions, we found little evidence that learners shift their study time allocation and restudy selection choices toward easier material when expecting a relatively more difficult cued recall test, even after acquiring experience with each test format. Instead, based on exploratory analyses conducted post-hoc, learners appeared to rely heavily on the success with which they retrieved associated studied information at the time that restudy selections were solicited. Moreover, counter to some extant models of self-regulated learning, learners tended to first choose difficult rather than easy items when making their restudy selections, regardless of expected test format. Together, these novel findings place new constraints on our current understanding of learners’ metacognitive sensitivity to expected test format, and have important implications for current theoretical accounts of self-regulated learning.
期刊介绍：
The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills.
Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed.
Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices.
One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
