Theories of self-regulated study assume that learners monitor item difficulty when making decisions about which items to select for study. To complement such theories, the authors propose an agenda-based regulation (ABR) model in which learners' study decisions are guided by an agenda that learners develop to prioritize items for study, given their goals and task constraints. Across 4 experiments, the authors orthogonally manipulated 1 task constraint-the reward structure of the task-with objective item difficulty, so that learners could use either item difficulty or potential reward in deciding how to allocate their study time. Learners studied items, were tested, and then selected half the items for restudy. As predicted by the ABR model, reward structure drove item selection more than did item difficulty, which demonstrates learners' agendas can override the effects of monitoring item difficulty in the allocation of study time.

No abstract

Repeated retrieval practice is a powerful learning tool for promoting long-term retention, but students use this tool ineffectively when regulating their learning. The current experiments evaluated the efficacy of a minimal intervention aimed at improving students' self-regulated use of repeated retrieval practice. Across 2 experiments, students made decisions about when to study, engage in retrieval practice, or stop learning a set of foreign language word pairs. Some students received direct instruction about how to use repeated retrieval practice. These instructions emphasized the mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice over a less effective strategy (restudying) and told students how to use repeated retrieval practice to maximize their performance-specifically, that they should recall a translation correctly 3 times during learning. This minimal intervention promoted more effective self-regulated use of retrieval practice and better retention of the translations compared to a control group that received no instruction. Students who experienced this intervention also showed potential for long-term changes in self-regulated learning: They spontaneously used repeated retrieval practice 1 week later to learn new materials. These results provide a promising first step for developing guidelines for teaching students how to regulate their learning more effectively using repeated retrieval practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

Value-based remembering in free recall tasks may be spared from the typical age-related cognitive decline observed for episodic memory. However, it is unclear whether value-based remembering for associative information is also spared from age-related cognitive decline. The current experiments evaluated the contribution of agenda-based based regulation and strategy use during study to age differences and similarities in value-based remembering of associative information. Participants studied word pairs (Experiments 1-2) or single words (Experiment 2) slated with different point values by moving a mouse controlled cursor to different spatial locations to reveal either items for study or the point value associated with remembering each item. Some participants also provided strategy reports for each item. Younger and older adults allocated greater time to studying high than low valued information, reported using normatively effective encoding strategies to learn high-valued pairs, and avoided study of low-valued pairs. As a consequence, both age groups selectively remembered more high than low-valued items. Despite nearly identical regulatory behavior, an associative memory deficit for older adults was present for high valued pairs. Age differences in value-based remembering did not occur when the materials were word lists. Fluid intelligence also moderated the effectiveness of older adults’ strategy use for high valued pairs (Experiment 2). These results suggest that age differences in associative value-based remembering may be due to some older adults’ gleaning less benefit from using normatively effective encoding strategies rather than age differences in metacognitive self-regulation per se.

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.

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.

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. Finegrained 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.

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 upsidedown 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.Keywords Self-regulated study . MetacognitionResearch on the allocation of study time has demonstrated that the difficulty of materials influences how long students study them and which are selected for study (for reviews, see Dunlosky & Ariel, 2011;Son & Kornell, 2009). For instance, when students have limited time for study, they often first select the easiest unlearned materials to study and then transition to progressively more difficult ones (Metcalfe, 2009). According to the agenda-based regulation framework (Ariel, Dunlosky, & Bailey, 2009), students are developing an agenda-or simple plan-to help them maximize performance. This particular agenda has been called using a region of proximal learning (RPL; Metcalfe, 2002), and using it can improve learning (Kornell & Metcalfe, 2006). Recently, however, Dunlosky and Ariel (in press) reported that how materials were presented influenced students' item selections and undermined their use of an RPL agenda.In particular, Dunlosky and Ariel (in press) examined the influence of the presentation order of items on studytime allocation for relatively easy, moderately difficult, and difficult English-Spanish translations. On each trial, three English words were presented side by side in a row, and participants chose translations to study by clicking a button below each English word. Item difficulty (i.e., easy, moderate, or difficult) was presented above each English word. Items were ordered from left to right either from the easiest to the most difficult item or from the most difficult to the easiest item. Learners often chose to study the easier items...