预测的效果在整个成年期都很强大,但关于预测和挑战的元认知信念不同

IF 9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Veronica X. Yan , Stephany Duany Rea , Faria Sana
{"title":"预测的效果在整个成年期都很强大,但关于预测和挑战的元认知信念不同","authors":"Veronica X. Yan ,&nbsp;Stephany Duany Rea ,&nbsp;Faria Sana","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Pretesting—asking learners to try to answer questions about a topic before learning—results in better memory of that topic compared to simply studying the topic without taking a pretest. We investigated whether age and memory contentment moderate the benefit of pretesting, and whether judgments of pretesting effectiveness varied across adulthood (<em>N</em> = 273, age range: 18–82). The pretesting effect was not moderated by either factor. Metacognitive judgments, however, varied by age. Younger participants were more likely to appreciate the benefits of pretesting than middle-aged and older adults. In Study 2 (<em>N</em> = 296, age range: 18–83), our mixed-methods approach showed converging results: The older the participant, the less likely they were to appreciate the benefits of errors and think that pretesting would be effective for them. These results suggest that although the pretesting effect appears to be robust throughout adulthood, metacognitive beliefs differ.</div></div><div><h3>Educational relevance statement</h3><div>Making mistakes is not just an unavoidable part of the learning process, but rather, cognitive science of learning research shows that it should be <em>desirable,</em> as it fosters deeper engagement that is integral to learning. In this paper, we focus on the strategy of pretesting—making guesses before learning the correct answer—and find that benefits are robust across adulthood, with participants ranging from 18 to 82. But people's beliefs differ with older participants responding that errors are undesirable. These findings highlight the importance of shifting attitudes towards challenge to support “desirably difficult” approaches to learning, thus ensuring that learners have both the right mindset and the right toolset.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 102683"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The pretesting effect is robust throughout adulthood, but metacognitive beliefs about pretesting and challenge differ\",\"authors\":\"Veronica X. Yan ,&nbsp;Stephany Duany Rea ,&nbsp;Faria Sana\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102683\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Pretesting—asking learners to try to answer questions about a topic before learning—results in better memory of that topic compared to simply studying the topic without taking a pretest. We investigated whether age and memory contentment moderate the benefit of pretesting, and whether judgments of pretesting effectiveness varied across adulthood (<em>N</em> = 273, age range: 18–82). The pretesting effect was not moderated by either factor. Metacognitive judgments, however, varied by age. Younger participants were more likely to appreciate the benefits of pretesting than middle-aged and older adults. In Study 2 (<em>N</em> = 296, age range: 18–83), our mixed-methods approach showed converging results: The older the participant, the less likely they were to appreciate the benefits of errors and think that pretesting would be effective for them. These results suggest that although the pretesting effect appears to be robust throughout adulthood, metacognitive beliefs differ.</div></div><div><h3>Educational relevance statement</h3><div>Making mistakes is not just an unavoidable part of the learning process, but rather, cognitive science of learning research shows that it should be <em>desirable,</em> as it fosters deeper engagement that is integral to learning. In this paper, we focus on the strategy of pretesting—making guesses before learning the correct answer—and find that benefits are robust across adulthood, with participants ranging from 18 to 82. But people's beliefs differ with older participants responding that errors are undesirable. These findings highlight the importance of shifting attitudes towards challenge to support “desirably difficult” approaches to learning, thus ensuring that learners have both the right mindset and the right toolset.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":\"120 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102683\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608025000597\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608025000597","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预测试——要求学习者在学习之前试着回答关于一个主题的问题——与不进行预测试的简单学习相比,可以更好地记忆该主题。我们调查了年龄和记忆满意度是否会调节预测的益处,以及对预测有效性的判断是否在成年期有所不同(N = 273,年龄范围:18-82)。前测效应不受任何因素的调节。然而,元认知判断因年龄而异。年轻的参与者比中年和老年人更能体会到预测的好处。在研究2 (N = 296,年龄范围:18-83)中,我们的混合方法方法显示了趋同的结果:参与者年龄越大,他们越不可能意识到错误的好处,越不可能认为预测试对他们有效。这些结果表明,尽管前测试效应在整个成年期似乎都很强大,但元认知信念却有所不同。教育相关性陈述犯错误不仅是学习过程中不可避免的一部分,而且,学习的认知科学研究表明,它应该是可取的,因为它促进了学习中不可或缺的更深层次的参与。在这篇论文中,我们将重点放在了预测试策略上——在学习正确答案之前进行猜测——并发现这种策略的好处在成年人中都很明显,参与者的年龄从18岁到82岁不等。但人们的看法不同,年龄较大的参与者认为错误是不可取的。这些发现强调了转变对挑战的态度以支持“适当困难”的学习方法的重要性,从而确保学习者拥有正确的心态和正确的工具集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The pretesting effect is robust throughout adulthood, but metacognitive beliefs about pretesting and challenge differ
Pretesting—asking learners to try to answer questions about a topic before learning—results in better memory of that topic compared to simply studying the topic without taking a pretest. We investigated whether age and memory contentment moderate the benefit of pretesting, and whether judgments of pretesting effectiveness varied across adulthood (N = 273, age range: 18–82). The pretesting effect was not moderated by either factor. Metacognitive judgments, however, varied by age. Younger participants were more likely to appreciate the benefits of pretesting than middle-aged and older adults. In Study 2 (N = 296, age range: 18–83), our mixed-methods approach showed converging results: The older the participant, the less likely they were to appreciate the benefits of errors and think that pretesting would be effective for them. These results suggest that although the pretesting effect appears to be robust throughout adulthood, metacognitive beliefs differ.

Educational relevance statement

Making mistakes is not just an unavoidable part of the learning process, but rather, cognitive science of learning research shows that it should be desirable, as it fosters deeper engagement that is integral to learning. In this paper, we focus on the strategy of pretesting—making guesses before learning the correct answer—and find that benefits are robust across adulthood, with participants ranging from 18 to 82. But people's beliefs differ with older participants responding that errors are undesirable. These findings highlight the importance of shifting attitudes towards challenge to support “desirably difficult” approaches to learning, thus ensuring that learners have both the right mindset and the right toolset.
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
Learning and Individual Differences
Learning and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信