Yang Chunliang, Potts Rosalind, Shanks David R
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Jul;43(7):1073-1092. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000363. Epub 2017 Jan 23.
Generating errors followed by corrective feedback enhances retention more effectively than does reading-the benefit of errorful generation-but people tend to be unaware of this benefit. The current research explored this metacognitive unawareness, its effect on self-regulated learning, and how to alleviate or reverse it. People's beliefs about the relative learning efficacy of generating errors followed by corrective feedback compared to reading, and the effects of generation fluency, are also explored. In Experiments 1 and 2, lower judgments of learning (JOLs) were consistently given to incorrectly generated word pairs than to studied (read) pairs and led participants to distribute more study resources to incorrectly generated pairs, even though superior recall of these pairs was exhibited in the final test. In Experiment 3, a survey revealed that people believe that generating errors followed by corrective feedback is inferior to reading. Experiment 4 was designed to alter participants' metacognition by informing them of the errorful generation benefit prior to study. Although metacognitive misalignment was partly countered, participants still tended to be unaware of this benefit when making item-by-item JOLs. In Experiment 5, in a delayed JOL condition, higher JOLs were given to incorrectly generated pairs and read pairs were more likely to be selected for restudy. The current research reveals that people tend to underestimate the learning efficiency of generating errors followed by corrective feedback relative to reading when making immediate item-by-item JOLs. Informing people of the errorful generation benefit prior to study and asking them to make delayed JOLs are effective ways to alleviate this metacognitive miscalibration. (PsycINFO Database Record
产生错误后再给予纠正性反馈比阅读更能有效地提高记忆——错误生成的益处——但人们往往没有意识到这一益处。当前的研究探讨了这种元认知上的无意识、其对自我调节学习的影响，以及如何减轻或扭转这种情况。还探讨了人们对产生错误后再给予纠正性反馈与阅读的相对学习效果的看法，以及生成流畅性的影响。在实验1和实验2中，对于错误生成的单词对，人们给出的学习判断（JOLs）始终低于对学习过（阅读过）的单词对的判断，这导致参与者将更多的学习资源分配给错误生成的单词对，尽管在最终测试中这些单词对表现出更好的回忆效果。在实验3中，一项调查显示人们认为产生错误后再给予纠正性反馈不如阅读。实验4旨在通过在学习前告知参与者错误生成的益处来改变他们的元认知。尽管元认知失调在一定程度上得到了纠正，但在进行逐项目的JOLs时，参与者仍然往往没有意识到这一益处。在实验5中，在延迟JOL的条件下，对于错误生成的单词对给出了更高的JOLs，并且阅读过的单词对更有可能被选出来重新学习。当前的研究表明，在进行即时逐项目的JOLs时，人们相对于阅读往往低估了产生错误后再给予纠正性反馈的学习效率。在学习前告知人们错误生成的益处并要求他们进行延迟JOLs是减轻这种元认知校准错误的有效方法。（PsycINFO数据库记录）
