Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: Inferential deficit or experimental artifact?

Hertzog, Christopher; Price, Jodi; Burpee, Ailis; Frentzel, William J.; Feldstein, Simeon; Dunlosky, John

doi:10.1080/17470210701855520

Cited by 28 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the fact that older adults recalled more middle pairs with imagery than sentence suggests that the lesser utilization of imagery is not due to the efficiency of each strategy. Hertzog et al (2009) found that knowledge about the superiority of imagery over rote repetition during associative learning was relatively low for participants. Thus, despite our finding about effectiveness of each strategy, older adults might have a false perception of how efficient imagery use is, which makes them reticent to use imagery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Strategy selection and aging: Impact of item concreteness in paired-associate task

Tournier¹,

Postal²

2011

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of aging on strategy selection in a paired-associate word task. Twenty-eight younger adults (mean age = 20.68 years) and 28 older adults (mean age = 68.46 years) studied 39 pairs of concrete, middle and abstract words. The concreteness level was manipulated in order to modify the benefit of imagery and sentence strategies in relation to task characteristics. The results showed an age difference in strategy selection in relation to concreteness level. Older adults showed less adaptive strategy selection for the imagery strategy but not for the sentence strategy. Change in strategy selection did not seem to be explained by better efficiency of sentence than imagery, so this study suggests a partial reduction of strategy adaptivity during aging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Strategy selection and aging: Impact of item concreteness in paired-associate task

Tournier¹,

Postal²

2011

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It seems that participants did not update their metacognitive judgments within one passage (i.e., after completing the proofreading task) or between passages (i.e., having task experience with a prediction-proofreadingpostdiction session already completed), which is inconsistent with Dunlosky and Hertzog (2000), in which participants became more accurate in their metacognitive judgments with task experience. However, Dunlosky and Hertzog (2000) did find that difference scores contrasting performance with predictions and postdictions were worse for the second list than the first list, such that people became more underconfident in their performance when using interactive imagery to study paired-associates (see also Hertzog et al, 2009;Price, Hertzog, & Dunlosky, 2008). In the present study, it may be necessary to have direct feedback or several trials (more than just two) in which participants become more aware of their performance, and what factors influence the strategies that are used during proofreading and when making metacognitive judgments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognition and proofreading: the roles of aging, motivation, and interest

Hargis

Yue

Kerr

et al. 2016

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined younger and older adults' error detection accuracy, prediction calibration, and postdiction calibration on a proofreading task, to determine if age-related differences would be present in this type of common error detection task. Participants were given text passages, and were first asked to predict the percentage of errors they would detect in the passage. They then read the passage and circled errors (which varied in complexity and locality), and made postdictions regarding their performance, before repeating this with another passage and answering a comprehension test of both passages. There were no age-related differences in error detection accuracy, text comprehension, or metacognitive calibration, though participants in both age groups were overconfident overall in their metacognitive judgments. Both groups gave similar ratings of motivation to complete the task. The older adults rated the passages as more interesting than younger adults did, although this level of interest did not appear to influence error-detection performance. The age equivalence in both proofreading ability and calibration suggests that the ability to proofread text passages and the associated metacognitive monitoring used in judging one's own performance are maintained in aging. These age-related similarities persisted when younger adults completed the proofreading tasks on a computer screen, rather than with paper and pencil. The findings provide novel insights regarding the influence that cognitive aging may have on metacognitive accuracy and text processing in an everyday task.

show abstract

“…By contrast, many college students report that blocking is better (Kornell & Bjork, 2008), in which case participants may prefer to block their study. In Kornell and Bjork's study, however, students' beliefs about these strategies were measured after they had performed the task, and beliefs can be substantially different when assessed prior to (or during) task completion versus after the task is complete (e.g., Hertzog et al, 2009). Thus, whether people's study choices would reflect a preference for blocking or interleaving was an unresolved issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study?

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research focused on the representation of concepts, little is known about the influence of self-regulatory processes when learning natural categories. Such work is vital, as many contexts require selfregulation when we form complex concepts. Previous research has demonstrated that interleaving, as compared to blocking, can improve classification. Thus, as an initial step to explore self-regulated learning of natural concepts, we evaluated whether people chose to block or interleave their practice. According to the search-for-differences hypothesis, people attempt to identify features of birds that distinguish one category (i.e., bird family) from another, and hence should interleave their study. According to the search-forsimilarities hypothesis, people attempt to identify features that indicate inclusion into a single category, and hence are expected to block their study. To evaluate these hypotheses, we had participants learn exemplar birds (e.g., Song Sparrow) with their respective bird families (e.g., Sparrow) by selecting the order in which to study bird families. Across four experiments, different formats for selecting exemplars for study were used, so as to provide converging evidence for how participants regulated their learning. Participants overwhelmingly preferred to block their study, even though interleaving is normatively better for learning.Keywords Self-regulated learning . Concept formation . Metacognition . Blocked versus interleaved practice Whenever one seeks to "find out something," one is immediately faced with deciding upon the order in which to make one's inquiries. It is commonplace to remark that some orders of inquiry are better than others. (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956, p. 81) In this quote from The Study of Thinking, Bruner et al. (1956) highlight the importance of the decisions that people make as they regulate their learning of concepts. Although self-regulated learning is ubiquitous in many contexts, relatively little is known about how people regulate their learning of concepts, because most research on concept formation has sought to discover how concepts are represented. To explore how people represent concepts, researchers have typically tested formal models by using artificial stimuli, and the presentation order of those stimuli during learning has been under the control of the experimenter (for overviews, see Goldstone, 1994;Medin & Schaffer, 1978). Experimenter control of presentation order was also employed in some early research on concept formation, which focused on how people generate and test hypotheses (or rules) about the concepts that they are learning (e.g., Halford, Cross, & Maybery, 1984). This research has been vital for discovering how people represent categories, yet it offers little insight into how people regulate their concept formation. Accordingly, we introduce procedures to explore how people regulate their learning of natural categories, which has relevance to research on self-regulated learning, concept formation, a...

show abstract

Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: Inferential deficit or experimental artifact?

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Strategy selection and aging: Impact of item concreteness in paired-associate task

Strategy selection and aging: Impact of item concreteness in paired-associate task

Metacognition and proofreading: the roles of aging, motivation, and interest

Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About