Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Department of Psychology, Knox College.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Jan;40(1):306-11. doi: 10.1037/a0033866. Epub 2013 Jul 29.
Research suggests that spaced learning, compared with massed learning, results in superior long-term retention (the spacing effect). Son (2010) identified a potentially important moderator of the spacing effect: metacognitive control. Specifically, when participants chose massed restudy but were instead forced to space the restudy, the spacing effect disappeared in adults (or was reduced in children). This suggests spacing is less effective (or possibly ineffective) if implemented against the wishes of the learner. A closer examination of this paradigm, however, reveals that item-selection issues might alternatively explain the disappearance of the spacing effect. In the current experiments, we replicated the original design demonstrating that an item-selection confound is operating. Furthermore, relative to a more appropriate baseline, the spacing effect was significant and of the same size whether participants' restudy choices were honored or violated. In this paradigm, metacognitive control does not appear to moderate the spacing effect.
研究表明，与集中学习相比，间隔学习会导致更好的长期保留（间隔效应）。Son（2010）确定了间隔效应的一个潜在重要调节因素：元认知控制。具体来说，当参与者选择集中复习但实际上被迫间隔复习时，成年人的间隔效应消失（或在儿童中减少）。这表明，如果学习者不愿意，间隔学习的效果就会降低（或者可能无效）。然而，对该范式的更仔细检查表明，项目选择问题可能会替代地解释间隔效应的消失。在当前的实验中，我们复制了原始设计，证明了项目选择混淆正在起作用。此外，与更合适的基线相比，无论参与者的复习选择是否得到尊重或违反，间隔效应都具有显著意义且大小相同。在这种范式中，元认知控制似乎不会调节间隔效应。
