研究学习时间分配和复习选择的适应性与预期测试形式的关系

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
{"title":"研究学习时间分配和复习选择的适应性与预期测试形式的关系","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":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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

摘要

摘要 以往的文献表明,学习者可以根据预期考试形式的要求调整编码策略。然而,其他形式的元认知控制,即学习时间分配和复习选择,是否也对预期的考试形式敏感,目前尚不清楚。在四个实验中,我们考察了学习者在预期难度较高的生成性记忆测试(即提示-回忆)与难度较低的非生成性记忆测试(即强迫选择识别)相比时,是否会对学习时间分配(实验1)和复习选择(实验2a、2b和3)进行质的调整。与我们的预测相反,我们几乎没有发现任何证据表明,学习者在期待难度相对较高的提示记忆测试时,会将学习时间分配和复习选择转向较容易的材料,即使在获得了每种测试形式的经验之后也是如此。相反,根据事后进行的探索性分析,学习者似乎在很大程度上依赖于他们在被要求进行复习选择时检索相关学习信息的成功率。此外,与一些现存的自我调节学习模型相反,学习者在进行复习选择时,往往首先选择难度较大的题目,而不是容易的题目,无论预期的测试形式如何。总之,这些新发现对我们目前理解学习者元认知对预期测试形式的敏感性提出了新的限制,并对目前自我调节学习的理论解释产生了重要影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining adaptations in study time allocation and restudy selection as a function of expected test format

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信