Robert Ariel

Self-Regulated Learning and the Allocation of Study Time

Abstract We explore how students allocate their study time—both with regard to which materials they select to study and how long they study them. A literature review revealed multiple outcomes that any theory of study-time allocation will need to explain: students often spend more time studying difficult to learn items (vs. less difficult ones), unless (a) little time is available for study or (b) the reward for correct recall is higher for the less difficult items. In the latter contexts, this shift to focusing on easier items is an effective strategy, and notably, students do not always make this shift when doing so would be effective. To account for these and other effects, we introduce the agenda-based-regulation (ABR) framework, which assumes that students use agendas to allocate time to efficiently achieve their goals. We compare the ABR framework to other theories of study-time allocation and discuss avenues for future research.

The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting

When people judge their learning of items across study–test trials, their accuracy in discriminating between learned and unlearned items improves on the second trial. We examined the source of this improvement by estimating the contribution of three factors—memory for past test performance (MPT), new learning, and forgetting—to accuracy on trial 2. In Experiment 1, during an initial trial, participants studied paired associates, made a judgment of learning (JOL) for each one, and were tested. During the second trial, we manipulated two variables: when the JOL was made (either immediately before or after studying an item) and whether participants were told the outcome of the initial recall attempt on trial 1. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was used with a 1-week retention interval between study and test on trial 2. In both experiments, JOL resolution was higher on trial 2 than on trial 1. Fine-grained analyses of JOL magnitude and decomposition of resolution supported several conclusions. First, MPT contributed the most to boosts in JOL magnitude and improvements in resolution across trials. Second, JOLs and subsequent resolution were sensitive to new learning and forgetting, but only when participants’ judgments were made after study. Thus, JOLs appear to integrate information from multiple factors, and these factors jointly contribute to JOL resolution.

Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time

Item order can bias learners’ study decisions and undermine the use of more effective allocation strategies, such as allocating study time to items in one’s region of proximal learning. In two experiments, we evaluated whether the influence of item order on study decisions reflects habitual responding based on a reading bias. We manipulated the order in which relatively easy, moderately difficult, and difficult items were presented from left to right on a computer screen and examined selection preference as a function of item order and item difficulty. Experiment 1a was conducted with native Arabic readers and in Arabic, and Experiment 1b was conducted with native English readers and in English. Students from both cultures prioritized items for study in the reading order of their native language: Arabic readers selected items for study in a right-to-left fashion, whereas English readers largely selected items from left to right. In Experiment 2, native English readers completed the same task as participants in Experiment 1b, but for some participants, lines of text were rotated upside down to encourage them to read from right to left. Participants who read upside-down text were more likely to first select items on the right side of an array than were participants who studied right-side-up text. These results indicate that reading habits can bias learners’ study decisions and can undermine agenda-based regulation.

People use the memory for past-test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning

When people estimate their memory for to-be-learned material over multiple study–test trials, they tend to base their judgments of learning (JOLs) on their test performance for those materials on the previous trial. Their use of this information—known as the memory for past-test (MPT) heuristic—is believed to be responsible for improvements in the relative accuracy (resolution) of people’s JOLs across learning trials. Although participants seem to use past-test information as a major basis for their JOLs, little is known about how learners translate this information into a judgment of learning. Toward this end, in two experiments, we examined whether participants factored past-test performance into their JOLs in either an explicit, theory-based way or an implicit way. To do so, we had one group of participants (learners) study paired associates, make JOLs, and take a test on two study–test trials. Other participants (observers) viewed learners’ protocols and made JOLs for the learners. Presumably, observers could only use theory-based information to make JOLs for the learners, which allowed us to estimate the contribution of explicit and implicit information to learners’ JOLs. Our analyses suggest that all participants factored simple past-test performance into their JOLs in an explicit, theory-based way but that this information made limited contributions to improvements in relative accuracy across trials. In contrast, learners also used other privileged, implicit information about their learning to inform their judgments (that observers had no access to) that allowed them to achieve further improvements in relative accuracy across trials.

Eyes wide open: enhanced pupil dilation when selectively studying important information

Remembering important information is imperative for efficient memory performance, but it is unclear how we encode important information. The current experiment evaluated two non-exclusive hypotheses for how learners selectively encode important information at the expense of less important information (differential resource allocation and information reduction). To evaluate these hypotheses, we measured changes in learners’ pupil diameter and fixation durations while participants performed a selectivity task that involved studying lists consisting of words associated with different point values. Participants were instructed to maximize their score on a free recall task that they completed after studying each list. Participants’ pupils dilated more when studying high-valued than low-valued words, and these changes were associated with better memory for high-valued words. However, participants fixated equally on words regardless of their value, which is inconsistent with the information reduction hypothesis. Participants also increased their memory selectivity across lists, but changes in pupil diameter and differences in fixations could not account for this increased selectivity. The results suggest that learners allocate attention differently to items as a function of their value, and that multiple processes and operations contribute to value-directed remembering.

The Influence of Agenda-Based and Habitual Processes on Item Selection During Study

Research on study-time allocation has largely focused on agenda-based regulation, such as whether learners select items for study that are in their region of proximal learning. In 4 experiments, the authors evaluated the contribution of habitual responding to study-time allocation (e.g., reading from left to right). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants selected items for study from a 3-item array. In Experiment 1, pairs were ordered by learning ease from left to right or in the reverse order. In Experiment 2, pairs were in a column with the easiest item either in the top or bottom position. Participants more likely chose to study the easiest item first when it was presented in the prominent position of an array, but when the difficult item was in the prominent position, it was more often chosen first for study. In Experiment 3, a 3 × 3 array was used. In 1 group, the 3 easy items were in the left column and the 3 difficult ones were in the right column; in another group, these columns were reversed. Participants largely chose items in a top-down or left-to-right order. In Experiment 4, items were presented sequentially for item selection, with either the difficult items presented first (followed by progressively easier items) or in the reverse order. Participants could choose half the items for restudy, and they were more likely to choose items presented earlier in the list, regardless of presentation order. These and other outcomes indicate that both agenda-based regulation (in terms of using the region of proximal learning) and habitual responding contribute to peoples selection of items for study.

When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study?

Learners presumably attempt to allocate their study time to maximize reward, yet in some contexts, their study choices are driven by reading biases that would not maximize reward. For instance, when presented with items in a horizontal array that are worth different values if correctly recalled, learners will often first select the leftmost item (i.e., a reading bias), even when it is associated with the lowest value. In four experiments, we investigated the degrees to which various factors cause learners to shift to agenda-based regulation. On each trial, participants were presented with three cues and a point value (1, 3, or 5) for each. The participants could select any cue for study (in which case, its target would be presented) in any order. In Experiment 1, participants either selected items for study under time pressure or were given unlimited time to select items. Not limiting selection time increased the likelihood that higher-valued items would be prioritized for study, but reading biases still influenced item selection. In Experiment 2, participants could select only one item per trial, and higher-valued items were prioritized even more for study, but not exclusively so. In Experiments 3 and 4, we ruled out a lack of motivation and inaccurate task beliefs as explanations for why participants would sometimes choose lower-valued items. The results demonstrate the influence of a pervasive reading bias on learners’ item selections, but as importantly, they show that a shift toward agenda use occurs when habitual responding cannot maximize reward.

The ties to unbind: age-related differences in feature (un)binding in working memory for emotional faces

In the present study, we investigated age-related differences in the processing of emotional stimuli. Specifically, we were interested in whether older adults would show deficits in unbinding emotional expression (i.e., either no emotion, happiness, anger, or disgust) from bound stimuli (i.e., photographs of faces expressing these emotions), as a hyper-binding account of age-related differences in working memory would predict. Younger and older adults completed different N-Back tasks (side-by-side 0-Back, 1-Back, 2-Back) under three conditions: match/mismatch judgments based on either the identity of the face (identity condition), the face’s emotional expression (expression condition), or both identity and expression of the face (both condition). The two age groups performed more slowly and with lower accuracy in the expression condition than in the both condition, indicating the presence of an unbinding process. This unbinding effect was more pronounced in older adults than in younger adults, but only in the 2-Back task. Thus, older adults seemed to have a specific deficit in unbinding in working memory. Additionally, no age-related differences were found in accuracy in the 0-Back task, but such differences emerged in the 1-Back task, and were further magnified in the 2-Back task, indicating independent age-related differences in attention/STM and working memory. Pupil dilation data confirmed that the attention/STM version of the task (1-Back) is more effortful for older adults than younger adults.

Agenda-Based Regulation of Study-Time Allocation

A great deal of learning occurs in contexts where people can regulate their study and hence can control their success. College students may decide to focus on mastering some class materials and to largely ignore others; on the job, doctors may decide how much time to devote to learning about new advances in their field; and for a hobby like bird watching, an enthusiast can choose how to allocate their time to learning birds’ names and their songs. Thus, people’s success at learning will be driven in part by how they allocate their study time, which brings us to the main question of this chapter: What drives people’s allocation of study time as they are attempting to learn new materials? This question has received much attention since Rose Zacks’ seminal research in 1961, so to put our current answer in context, we first briefly describe some of the earliest empirical and theoretical work on study- time allocation.

Age-related similarities and differences in monitoring spatial cognition

ABSTRACT Spatial cognitive performance is impaired in later adulthood but it is unclear whether the metacognitive processes involved in monitoring spatial cognitive performance are also compromised. Inaccurate monitoring could affect whether people choose to engage in tasks that require spatial thinking and also the strategies they use in spatial domains such as navigation. The current experiment examined potential age differences in monitoring spatial cognitive performance in a variety of spatial domains including visual–spatial working memory, spatial orientation, spatial visualization, navigation, and place learning. Younger and older adults completed a 2D mental rotation test, 3D mental rotation test, paper folding test, spatial memory span test, two virtual navigation tasks, and a cognitive mapping test. Participants also made metacognitive judgments of performance (confidence judgments, judgments of learning, or navigation time estimates) on each trial for all spatial tasks. Preference for allocentric or egocentric navigation strategies was also measured. Overall, performance was poorer and confidence in performance was lower for older adults than younger adults. In most spatial domains, the absolute and relative accuracy of metacognitive judgments was equivalent for both age groups. However, age differences in monitoring accuracy (specifically relative accuracy) emerged in spatial tasks involving navigation. Confidence in navigating for a target location also mediated age differences in allocentric navigation strategy use. These findings suggest that with the possible exception of navigation monitoring, spatial cognition may be spared from age-related decline even though spatial cognition itself is impaired in older age.