Presenting information in a perceptually degraded format sometimes enhances learning outcomes. However, earlier studies in which words were presented in la

Research in cognitive psychology has suggested that difficulties are often desirable for learning: learning strategies that create difficulties for learners during practice often produce durable learning. Prominent examples of effective learning strategies that introduce desirable difficulties are testing as a means of learning, spacing study sessions over time, and interleaving practice of different topics. Previous research has suggested that, generally, undergraduates’ metacognitive knowledge about the effectiveness of these learning strategies is inaccurate. The goal of the current study was to extend the examination of metacognitive knowledge of learning strategies to pre-service and in-service teachers, and further examine whether teachers’ metacognitive knowledge is related to their teaching experience. Pre-service teachers enrolled in a university teacher training program (N = 83) and in-service elementary, junior-high, and high school teachers (N = 82) were presented with learning scenarios and predicted which of two learning strategies would yield the better outcome. Results suggested that, overall, both pre-service and in-service teachers failed to predict the advantages of testing, spacing, and interleaving as learning strategies. Furthermore, their knowledge of learning strategies failed to increase with teaching experience. It is, therefore, recommended that explicit instruction about the benefits of empirically supported learning strategies should be included in teacher training and development programs.

Research has observed that monitoring one's own learning modifies memory for some materials but not for others. Specifically, making judgments of learning (JOLs) while learning word pairs improves subsequent cued-recall memory performance for related word pairs but not for unrelated word pairs. Theories that have attempted to explain this pattern of results assume that people attend to and process cue-target relatedness during learning more when making JOLs than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. The present research directly tested this relatedness-processing assumption with unrelated and related word pairs as well as with hitherto unexamined materials: identical word pairs. In three experiments, participants studied word pairs while either making or not making JOLs. Results revealed that making JOLs improved memory for related word pairs as well as for identical word pairs, but not for unrelated word pairs. Importantly, in two of the experiments, participants were further asked to judge at test whether each cue appeared with an unrelated, related, or identical target before attempting to recall it. Results revealed that making JOLs improved the accuracy of these relatedness judgments independently from its effect on recall, thus providing direct evidence that people process cue-target relatedness when making JOLs more than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. These findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why judging one's own learning can modify memory and, more broadly, suggest that instructions to monitor learning can direct people's attention to information that is not or less processed otherwise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Learners are more likely to remember what they study if they are motivated to do so. Such motivation can be externally driven by prospective rewards, but also intrinsically driven by curiosity. The present research focused on the role of curiosity during intentional learning. We examined the potential mnemonic benefit of curiosity, whether this benefit is undermined when learners are externally motivated to learn by rewards, and whether it can be attributed to increased study time for information they are more curious about. In two experiments, participants were presented with trivia questions, rated their level of curiosity about each question, and then studied the answers, either with or without a prospect of reward for correct recall on a subsequent test. Study time was either fixed (Experiment 1) or self-paced (Experiment 2). Performance on a memory test 1 week later suggested that curiosity enhanced long-term retention, and that rewards did not undermine the benefit of curiosity. When learning was self-paced, study time increased with curiosity but did not account for the effect of curiosity on memory. The results highlight the important role curiosity plays in learning and suggest that curiosity and rewards can be used together effectively to promote students’ learning.