Contribution of Degraded Perception and Insufficient Encoding to Decisions to Mass or Space Study
Abstract
How do learners decide whether to mass or space an item during study? Results from Son (2004) indicate that these decisions are influenced by the degree to which an item is judged to be encoded sufficiently during an initial study episode, whereas others (Toppino, Cohen, Davis, & Moors, 2009) have proposed that degraded perceptual processing contributed to participants’ decisions to mass or space study. To reconcile these conflicting conclusions, the current experiments used eye tracking technology to evaluate the contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding on learners’ study decisions. Participants studied synonym pairs from the graduate record exam (GRE) that varied in item difficulty for 1 s (Experiment 1) or 5 s (Experiment 2) each while their eye movements were recorded. Participants then decided whether to mass, space, or drop each pair in future study. For pairs that were never fixated, and hence not perceived, participants overwhelmingly chose to mass their study, presumably so that they could read the target. For pairs that were processed sufficiently to be perceived, preference for massing and spacing pairs increased with item difficulty (i.e., both increased as pairs became less likely to be fully encoded). Taken together, these data demonstrate a contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding for learners’ decisions to mass (or space) their study.
References
(2011). Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1015–1021.
(2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
(2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 126–137.
(2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.
(2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380.
(2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.
(1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (, Trans.). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University (Original work published 1885).
(1989). Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a two-process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 371–377.
(1967). Effects of tests without feedback and presentation-test interval in paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 290–298.
(1976). Repetition and acoustic contrast in short-term memory for letter sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 695–704.
(2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 530–542.
(1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
(1962). Recency and frequency in paired associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 396–403.
(1963). Effects of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 206–209.
(2010). Toward an understanding of students’ allocation of study time: Why do they decide to mass or space their practice? Memory & Cognition, 38, 431–440.
(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
(1981). Masking of foveal and parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 167–179.
(2010). The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: Evidence for lexical control of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1677–1683.
(2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: Eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 489–493.
(1998). Establishing a time-line of word recognition: evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. Neuroreport, 9, 2195–2200.
(2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In , Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 278–298). New York, NY: Routledge.
(2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 601–604.
(2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 255–262.
(2009). Metacognitive control over the distribution of practice: When is spacing preferred? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 5, 1352–1358.
(1979). The within-list distributed practice effect: More evidence for the inattention hypothesis. The American Journal of Psychology, 92, 105–113.
(1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In , Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
