learning to learn key studies Flashcards
Bjork (1994)
(desirably) difficult learning = enduring learning
Yunker and Yunker (2003)
explored ratings/final marks relationship between the two courses with the same students but different instructors
- after controlling for student ability, higher ratings in introductory accounting were negatively correlated with grades in intermediate accounting
- found higher ratings for instructors performed worse
Karpicke et al (2009)
surveyed college students’ study behaviours (N=177). Students freely reported all study strategies that they had used, and ranked them in order of frequency used
- re-reading used by 84%, 55% ranked it as top strategy
- self-testing used by 11%, 1% ranked it as top strategy
Cornell and Bjork (2007)
“if you quick yourself while studying, why?”
-68% - to figure out how well information has been learnt
- 18% - learn more through testing than re-reading
- 4% - quizzing is more enjoyable
- 9% - don’t usually quiz self
Reodiger and Karpicke (2006)
landmark paper.
experiment 1, phase 1 - participants studies 2 prose passages on “the sun” and “sea otters”. they studies one passage twice, and the other passage once then completed and initial free recall test
- phase 2 - participants completed final free recall tests for each passage either 5 min, 3 days or 1 week later.
- results - very short retention intervals, restudying > test. longer retention intervals, test> restudying.
- if we want to remember longer, test taking is better
McDaniel et al (2007)
real college course, students took weekly quizzes or given read only information. quizzes were either multiple choice questions or short answer
- quizzing, but not restudying enhanced final test performance relative to control material
- short answer quizzes were more beneficial than multiple choice questions
Agarwal et al (2021)
meta-analysis of 50 experiments examining effects of retrieval practice in classroom
-94% of studies revealed positive effects of retrieval practice
-majority of effect sized (57%) were medium or large
Kromann et al (2009)
medical students completed a resuscitation course following simulated cardiac arrest
-intervention group completed 3.5 hrs teaching /training. then 30 mins low stakes testing
- control completed 3.5 hrs teaching/training, ten 30 mins of scenarios
- 2 weeks later, final practice of learning outcomes
- final test performance was significantly better in intervention group than control group
Smith et al (2016)
participants studies list of words and images.
-restudy or free-recall
- 24 hours later -stress induction or non-stressful control tasks
- overall retrieval practice enhanced recall
- study group: stress impaired recall
-retrieval practice group: similar recall for stressed and non-stressed participants
Szpunar et al (2008)
taking a test after lists 1-4, improved learning and recall of list 5, relative to a control task or restudying lists 1-4 - the forwards testing effect.
- test taking led to fewer intrusions from the previous lists than the other conditions
- benefit of testing on cumulative test probably partially reflects the backwards testing effect
Szpunar et al (2013)
students watched an online lecture in 4 segments
- participants completed either test, restudy phase or control task after first 3 segments
- all tested after the 4th segment
- participants asked whether they mind-wandered during segments
-experimenter looked at students’ notes from video
- interim testing improved learning of 4 segment, reduced mind-wandering and increased note-taking
Jing et al (2016)
undergraduate students watched 40 min lecture with interim testing or restudying
-participants asked what they were thinking about during the lecture
-mind-wandering did to significantly differ between the two groups
- although the interim testing group reported mind-wandering more closely related to the lecture than the restudy group
Yang et al (2019)
participants studied either face-name or Swahili-English pairs in lists 1-3. all participants studies face-name pairs in list 4
- interim testing improved final list 4 recall even when lists 1-3 and list 4 material type differed.
- forward testing effect is transferable to different stimuli
Kornell et al (2009)
participants studied weakly related word pairs. no exposure to answers before the pretest
- participants guesses mostly incorrect, any correct guesses removed from data set
- testing improved learning, even when all answers were wrong
- errors fostered learning
Grimaldi and Karpicke (2012)
same as Kornell et al (2009), however they used weakly related and unrelated pairs.
- pretesting improved recall of related pairs, not unrelated pairs
Seabrooke et al (2019)
Participants gave higher motivation ratings to learn facts they had guessed than not guessed
Butterfield and Metcalfe (2001)
participants answered questions and rated their confidence for each. feedback was provided after each answer
-5 min retention interval
- cued recall final test
- high confidence errors more likely to be corrected than low-confidence errors
Butterfield and Metcalfe (2006)
participants completed a hypercorrection task. also asked to detect soft tones.
-participants missed more tones that were presented with feedback following high-confidence errors than low-confidence errors
-suggests participants’ attention was captured by the feedback
Ebbinghaus (1885)
memorised nonsense syllables to the ticking of a metronome and then attempted to recall them later.
- massed learning day 1: 68 massed repetitions, day 2: 7 additional repetitions were needed for 1 perfect recital
-spaced learning: day 1: 38 spaced repetitions, day 2: 7 additional repetitions were needed for 1 perfect recital
-with any considerable number of repetitions a suitable distribution of them over a space of time is decidedly more advantageous than massing of them a single time
Ruch (1928)
reviewed dozens of studies on the spacing effect and concluded that the spacing effect was robust
Greeno (1964)
participants studies word-digit pairs, then shown words and asked to name associated digit. 3 presentations of each pair with feedback. presentations spaced (15 intervening items) or massed (0-1 intervening item)
-spaced shown to be more effective
Bird (2010)
found that longer spacing gaps improved English-learning adults’ understanding of subtle grammatical rules
Rohrer and Taylor (2006)
students required to find the number of permutations of a sequence of items with at least one repeated item. either practiced all at once (massed) or the problems were split over two sessions (spaced)
Baddeley and Longman (1978)
postmen trained over several sessions to type aloha-numeric code material using a convertible typewrite
-learning: one 1hr session per day over 12 weeks > two 2 hr sessions per day over 3 weeks
-metacognition: opposite results were obtained for questions : “how satisfactory did you find your training?”