Abstract We investigated whether three interventions – studying incorrect worked examples, studying correct worked examples, or receiving feedback – improved children’s 0–1,000 (Experiment 1) and adults’ 1 thousand–1 billion (Experiment 2) number-line estimation precision relative to a no intervention control group. At pretest, participants estimated numbers on number lines (without feedback or examples) and judged their confidence in each estimate. They were then assigned to an intervention group, completed intervention trials, and then estimated numbers and judged their confidence at posttest. Children’s and adults’ confidence judgments did not increase from pretest to posttest. However, consistent with prior research, feedback improved children’s and adults’ estimation precision from pretest-to-posttest. Importantly, studying correct worked examples also improved precision, but studying incorrect worked examples did not. Although not all children benefited from training, those who did were able to transfer their knowledge to a number-categorization task. Adults in the feedback group were also able to transfer their learning. These outcomes highlight benefits of studying worked examples for improving children’s and adults’ estimation precision, but to obtain benefits, corrective feedback must be included.

Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning? Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied, (b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy.

Do students effectively regulate their learning of categories? In the current experiment. we investigated this question by adapting the honor-dishonor method for use in a category-learning procedure. College students practiced classifying examples from 6 categories, and after practice, made category-learning judgments by predicting how well they would be able to classify examples from each category. They then selected half of the categories for restudy. Their selections were either honored (they further practiced the categories they had selected) or dishonored (they practiced the categories they had not selected), and then a final test was administered. Results demonstrated an overall honor-dishonor advantage, with final performance being higher when decisions were honored than dishonored. Moreover, although many participants selected categories they had judged as being less well learned, some selected categories they had judged as being more well learned. The former participants demonstrated an honor-dishonor advantage, whereas the latter performed better when their decisions were dishonored. These findings indicate that many students use their category-learning judgments effectively, but some do not. Instructors should be aware that some students may focus on easier materials at the expense of their overall achievement, and hence, these students may require training or instruction about how to more effectively regulate their learning.

Students rely on their notes to memorise and learn critical course content, and recent studies of note-taking state that most students take notes, citing a survey published in 1974. Over the past four decades, classrooms and note-taking technologies have evolved: students can take notes on electronic devices, and some classes are entirely online. Despite these changes, few studies have investigated their impact on note-taking habits. Given that note-taking is critical for student learning, the purpose of the present study was to update the literature on students' general note-taking behaviour and investigate the impact of these newer technological advances on note-taking. We surveyed 577 college students, using questions from prior surveys and new questions relevant to technology. As per prior studies, students still reported taking notes in classrooms, and as important, students reported flexibility in their note-taking by (a) using a notebook or a laptop depending on course demands and (b) often deciding not to take notes in online courses. Thus, students are flexible in their note-taking behaviour, but may not always make the best decisions about how and when to take notes.

Many students use laptops to take notes in classes, but does using them impact later test performance? In a high-profile investigation comparing note-taking writing on paper versus typing on a laptop keyboard, Mueller and Oppenheimer (Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168, 2014) concluded that taking notes by longhand is superior. We conducted a direct replication of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) and extended their work by including groups who took notes using eWriters and who did not take notes. Some trends suggested longhand superiority; however, performance did not consistently differ between any groups (experiments 1 and 2), including a group who did not take notes (experiment 2). Group differences were further decreased after students studied their notes (experiment 2). A meta-analysis (combining direct replications) of test performance revealed small (nonsignificant) effects favoring longhand. Based on the present outcomes and other available evidence, concluding which method is superior for improving the functions of note-taking seems premature.

Many techniques have been discovered that can improve memory in the laboratory—testing, spacing, organizing, mapping, elaborating, imaging, explaining, using multimedia, among many others. With appropriate designs, research conducted in classrooms can inform theoretical debates about why a particular technique or instructional intervention is effective. Conducting memory research in educational contexts by no means represents a new research movement. Memory researchers typically generate conclusions using experimental methods. Memory researchers often control the presentation rates of to-be-learned materials to equate nominal time on task. To detect effects, criterion tests need to be reliable and tap the level of knowledge targeted by an intervention. Interleaving boosts students' ability to solve math problems, and one theoretical explanation is that it encourages students to contrast similar types of problem so that students can discriminate which formula matches each problem type.

Although research has established that people can accurately judge how well they have learned categories, no research has examined whether people use their category-learning judgments (CLJs) to regulate their restudy of natural categories. Thus, in five experiments we investigated the relationship between people's CLJs and selections of categories for restudy. Participants first attempted to learn natural categories (bird families; e.g., finches, grosbeaks, and warblers) so that they could categorize new exemplars on a final test. After this initial study phase, participants made a CLJ for each category and then selected a subset of the categories for restudy. Across experiments, we also manipulated several variables (e.g., selecting either three or nine categories, or obtaining 30% vs. 80% performance on the final test) that were expected to influence restudy selections. However, the manipulations typically had minimal impact. More important, in all experiments we found an unexpected outcome: Some participants tended to select the categories they judged to be most well learned for restudy, and others tended to select those judged to be least well learned. We discovered these qualitative differences in the use of CLJs to make restudy selections by using post-hoc analyses in Experiments 1a and 1b, and hence we sought to (a) replicate them in Experiments 2, 3, and 4 and (b) provide preliminary evidence regarding factors that can (vs. cannot) account for them. Most important, evidence across all of the experiments supported the conclusion that people do use their CLJs to select categories for restudy.

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some - but not all of - the spacing effect on final performance.

Students' self-reported study skills and beliefs are often inconsistent with empirically supported (ES) study strategies. However, little is known regarding instructors' beliefs about study skills and if such beliefs differ from those of students. In the current study, we surveyed college students' and instructors' knowledge of study strategies and had both groups evaluate the efficacy of learning strategies described in six learning scenarios. Results from the survey indicated that students frequently reported engaging in methods of studying that were not optimal for learning. Instructors' responses to the survey indicated that they endorsed a number of effective study skills but also held several beliefs inconsistent with research in learning and memory (e.g., learning styles). Further, results from the learning scenarios measure indicated that instructors were moderately more likely than students to endorse ES learning strategies. Collectively, these data suggest that instructors exhibited better knowledge of effective study skills than students, although the difference was small. We discuss several notable findings and argue for the improvement of both students' and instructors' study skill knowledge.