» Articles » PMID: 22103783

Adaptive and Qualitative Changes in Encoding Strategy with Experience: Evidence from the Test-expectancy Paradigm

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2011 Nov 23
PMID 22103783
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Connecting working and long-term memory: Bayesian-hierarchical multinomial model-based analyses reveal storage next to retrieval differences.

Streitberger C, Kuhlmann B, Meier M, Arnold N Mem Cognit. 2024; 52(8):1915-1927.

PMID: 39237842 PMC: 11588770. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01627-3.


Lower constraint testing enhances the testing effect for some contextual details but not others.

Giannakopoulos K, McCurdy M, Sklenar A, Frankenstein A, Urban Levy P, Leshikar E Brain Behav. 2024; 14(1):e3380.

PMID: 38376029 PMC: 10776958. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3380.


Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: V. Using a motivational framework to understand the benefits and costs of testing.

Nokes-Malach T, Fraundorf S, Caddick Z, Rottman B Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2023; 8(1):64.

PMID: 37817025 PMC: 10564705. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-023-00518-6.


Examining the effect of expected test format and test difficulty on the frequency and mnemonic costs of mind wandering.

Laursen S, Wammes J, Fiacconi C Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023; 77(5):1068-1092.

PMID: 37395204 PMC: 11032633. DOI: 10.1177/17470218231187892.


That person is now with or without a mask: how encoding context modulates identity recognition.

Garcia-Marques T, Oliveira M, Nunes L Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):29.

PMID: 35362858 PMC: 8972631. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00379-5.


References
1.
Woods C . Confidence intervals for gamma-family measures of ordinal association. Psychol Methods. 2007; 12(2):185-204. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.185. View

2.
Szpunar K, McDermott K, Roediger 3rd H . Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention. Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(5):1007-13. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193473. View

3.
Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R . Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 9(3):105-19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x. View

4.
Postman L, JENKINS W . An experimental analysis of set in rote learning the interaction of learning; instruction and retention performance. J Exp Psychol. 1948; 38(6):683-9. DOI: 10.1037/h0057311. View

5.
Carey S, Lockhart R . Encoding differences in recognition and recall. Mem Cognit. 2013; 1(3):297-300. DOI: 10.3758/BF03198112. View