Study Strategies and Generative Learning: What Works?

Blerkom, Dianna L. Van; Blerkom, Malcolm L. Van; Bertsch, Sharon

doi:10.1080/10790195.2006.10850190

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the study of Koch and Eckstein (1991), participants who generated questions outperformed their counterparts who were engaged in answering adjunct questions while reading. In the study of Van Blerkom et al (2006), prompted self‐questioning yielded higher learning scores than highlighting while reading. Prompted self‐questioning was not less effective than outlining (Foos et al, 1994), notetaking (Van Blerkom et al, 2006), and testing (Weinstein et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In the study of Van Blerkom et al (2006), prompted self‐questioning yielded higher learning scores than highlighting while reading. Prompted self‐questioning was not less effective than outlining (Foos et al, 1994), notetaking (Van Blerkom et al, 2006), and testing (Weinstein et al, 2010). Koch and Eckstein (1991) explained that one of the reasons for the advantage of self‐questioning on learning from expository texts is primarily the stimulation of curiosity generated from open answers on self‐generated questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The advantage of prompted self‐questioning (often referred to as question generation ) over passive studying on learning from expository texts has been shown in numerous studies (Bugg & McDaniel, 2012; Foos, Mora, & Tkacz, 1994; Koch & Eckstein, 1991; Van Blerkom, van Blerkom, & Bertsch, 2006; Weinstein, McDermott, & Roediger, 2010). The relative learning advantage of prompted self‐questioning has also been demonstrated in comparison with techniques that engage learners in active processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The advantage of prompted self-questioning (often referred to as question generation) over passive studying on learning from expository texts has been shown in numerous studies (Bugg & McDaniel, 2012;Foos, Mora, & Tkacz, 1994;Koch & Eckstein, 1991;Van Blerkom, van Blerkom, & Bertsch, 2006;Weinstein, McDermott, & Roediger, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Spontaneous inferential processing while reading interleaved expository texts enables learners to discover the underlying regularities

Abel

Niedling

Hänze

2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies on text sequencing found learning advantages of interleaving over blocking in terms of high-level inferences. We conducted a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial experiment with college students (n = 117) by manipulating text sequence (interleaved vs. blocked) and self-questioning activity while reading (spontaneous vs. prompted) between subjects and testing delay (immediately vs. 1-week delay) within subjects. Results revealed that students are spontaneously engaged in selfquestioning and inferential processing while reading an interleaved text. Students who were spontaneously engaged while reading an interleaved text outperformed their counterparts in all other conditions in the immediate and delayed test on comparative reasoning, inductive reasoning, and memorization of factual details. The learning advantages were mediated by inductive inferences made while reading an interleaved text. Results support the discriminative contrast view that readers are encouraged to discover the underlying regularities when differences and similarities among categories are accentuated by their juxtaposition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spontaneous inferential processing while reading interleaved expository texts enables learners to discover the underlying regularities

Abel

Niedling

Hänze

2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the majority of generation effect research is laboratory-based, a few studies have shown generation effects in more realistic classroom settings (e.g., Foos, Mora, & Tkacz, 1994;Van Blerkom, Van Blerkom, & Bertsch, 2006). For instance, Foos, Mora, and Tkacz (1994) reported reliable generation effects for students who generated their own outlines after reading a text (compared to an experimenter-provided outline) and for students who created their own practice questions (compared to experimenter-provided questions).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation and Retrieval Practice Effects in the Classroom Using PeerWise

Kelley

Chapman-Orr

Calkins

et al. 2019

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study explored the generation and retrieval practice effects within a college classroom using a free, online tool called PeerWise (PW). PW allows students to create their own multiple-choice questions, share them with peers, and answer the shared questions written by their peers. Forty students from two sections of an upper level cognitive psychology course authored and answered multiple-choice questions as part of a semester-long assignment. Analyses showed reliable generation and retrieval practice effects following PW usage, along with a significant improvement in exam performance.

show abstract

Embedding retrieval practice in undergraduate biochemistry teaching using PeerWise

Higgins,

Dudley,

Bodger

et al. 2023

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieval practice is an evidence‐based approach to teaching; here, we evaluate the use of PeerWise for embedding retrieval practice into summative assessment. PeerWise allows anonymous authoring, sharing, answering, rating, and feedback on peer‐authored multiple choice questions. PeerWise was embedded as a summative assessment in a large first‐year introductory biochemistry module. Engagement with five aspects of the tool was evaluated against student performance in coursework, exam, and overall module outcome. Results indicated a weak‐to‐moderate positive but significant correlation between engagement with PeerWise and assessment performance. Student feedback showed PeerWise had a polarizing effect; the majority recognized the benefits as a learning and revision tool, but a minority strongly disliked it, complaining of a lack of academic moderation and irrelevant questions unrelated to the module. PeerWise can be considered a helpful learning tool for some students and a means of embedding retrieval practice into summative assessment.

show abstract

Study Strategies and Generative Learning: What Works?

Cited by 19 publications

References 13 publications

Spontaneous inferential processing while reading interleaved expository texts enables learners to discover the underlying regularities

Spontaneous inferential processing while reading interleaved expository texts enables learners to discover the underlying regularities

Generation and Retrieval Practice Effects in the Classroom Using PeerWise

Embedding retrieval practice in undergraduate biochemistry teaching using PeerWise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About