Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: Evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm.

Abstract

Three experiments demonstrated learners’ abilities to adaptively and qualitatively accommodate their encoding strategies to the demands of an upcoming test. Stimuli were word pairs. In Experiment 1, test expectancy was induced for either cued recall (of targets given cues) or free recall (of targets only) across 4 study–test cycles of the same test format, followed by a final critical cycle featuring either the expected or the unexpected test format. For final tests of both cued and free recall, participants who had expected that test format outperformed those who had not. This disordinal interaction, supported by recognition and self-report data, demonstrated not mere differences in effort based on anticipated test difficulty, but rather qualitative and appropriate differences in encoding strategies based on expected task demands. Participants also came to appropriately modulate metacognitive monitoring (Experiment 2) and study-time allocation (Experiment 3) across study–test cycles. Item and associative recognition performance, as well as self-report data, revealed shifts in encoding strategies across trials; these results were used to characterize and evaluate the different strategies that participants employed for cued versus free recall and to assess the optimality of participants’ metacognitive control of encoding strategies. Taken together, these data illustrate a sophisticated form of metacognitive control, in which learners qualitatively shift encoding strategies to match the demands of anticipated tests.

Improving encoding strategies as a function of test knowledge and experience

“…We did not, however, find evidence in support of deWinstanley and Bjork's suggestion that actually experiencing the memorial advantage of generation in the context of a test is necessary for the development of an improved encoding strategy for future to-be-read information. Rather, our pattern of results seems more consistent with the enhanced contextualprocessing account suggested by Bjork and Storm (2011) and, more generally, with test-expectancy findings, such as those of Finley and Benjamin (2012). Namely, that for new information to be encoded with a more effective processing strategy, learners need to be made aware of the type of test they will be receiving and the type of information to which such a test is sensitive-that is, the type of information one needs to encode during study to perform well on such a test.…”

“…Experience with practice tests also provides students with the chance to learn the format of future exams and to adjust their study strategies accordingly. As Finley and Benjamin (2012) argued, studying is most efficient when learners are equipped with beneficial encoding strategies.…”

Is memory organized by temporal contiguity?

“…This task entails different cognitive demands than free recall. Finley and Benjamin (2012) showed that subjects who expect such a cued-recall test do much better on it than do subjects who expect free recall, and vice versa. The researchers also showed that these differences were related to test-appropriate changes in the strategies adopted by their subjects as they became better at one of the tasks.…”

When will bigger be (recalled) better? The influence of category size on JOLs depends on test format

“…Not only do learners consider individual items' characteristics (e.g., Mueller et al, 2013), they also analytically consider multiple relations among studied items and the interaction between these relations and expected test format. Few studies have shown that expected test format affects the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring (Finley & Benjamin, 2012;Thiede, 1996). While much research has shown that relatedness plays a large role in multiple areas of cognition, the current studies show that learners' predictions about the influences of relatedness are incredibly accurate under various testing circumstances.…”

“…Learners may consider the expected test format (and its match with how they are encoding and rehearsing the stimuli) when assigning JOLs and give ratings based upon how well their output strategy aligns with the test format. Prior research supports this idea, as expected test format has an impact on student's mnemonic predictions (and consequently their study choices; Finley & Benjamin, 2012;Thiede, 1996;Thiede, Wiley, & Griffin, 2011). We investigated these three different explanations across two experiments.…”