Testing Effect and Metacognitive Judgements

U području metakognicije intenzivno se proučava proces nadgledanja pamćenja i učenja. Metakognitivne procjene učenja (eng. judgment of learning) su procjene koje ljudi rade tijekom ili nakon učenja novog materijala o tome koliko misle da su dobro naučili i koliko će biti uspješna njihova izvedba na završnom testiranju. Efekt testiranja javlja se zbog pokušaja doziva informacija tijekom učenja i rezultira bržom i boljom pohranom informacija u odnosu na strategije ponavljanja. Cilj ovog rada je ispitati u kojoj mjeri su ispitanici svjesni povoljnog učinka efekta testiranja na pamćenje. Istraživanje se sastoji od dva dijela: ankete i eksperimenta. Pomoću ankete se ispitivao prigodan uzorak studenata o njihovim načinima učenja i strategijama koje pritom koriste, te koliko im iste pomažu u ostvarivanju boljih rezultata na ispitima. U anketi je sudjelovalo 310 ispitanika sa Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Zadru i Zagrebu, te se pokazalo da većina studenata ne prepoznaje mnemoničke dobrobiti testiranja kao strategije učenja, te da je jedini prediktor koji djelomično objašnjava ocjenu kontinuirano učenje kroz godinu. U eksperimentu je sudjelovalo 100 studenata s Odsjeka za psihologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Rijeci. Ispitivalo se pamćenje asocijativnih parova i metakognitivne procjene učenja ovisno o kontekstu učenja (ponavljane ili testiranje), vremenu odgode (neposredno ili odgođeno) i tipu procjene (samo-znak ili znak-cilj). Rezultati su pokazali bolje pamćenje ponavljanih od testiranih parova riječi u neposrednom testiranju, no u odgođenom testiranju i samo-znak kontekstu, parovi učeni testiranjem bolje su zapamćeni od parova učenih ponavljanjem. Metakognitivne procjene bile su više za parove koji su testirani neposredno u odnosu na odgodu od sedam dana, te više za parove učene testiranjem od parova učenih ponavljanjem, ali samo u odgođenoj procjeni i samo-znak kontekstu. Također, parovi procjenjivani u znak-cilj kontekstu općenito su procijenjeni više od parova u samo-znak kontekstu.In the domain of metacognition, the process of monitoring of memory and learning is intensely studied. Metacognitive judgments of learning are assessments that people made during or after the learning of new material. People asses how well they think they learned the material and how successful will their performance be on final testing. Testing effect is a phenomenon in which better and faster memorization occurs when participants attempt to retrieve information from memory relative to the rehearsal strategy. The aim of the present study is to examine to what degree are participants aware of the beneficial effect of testing on memory. The study is composed of two parts: Survey and experiment. The survey was conducted in order to gain more information on strategies that students employ during learning and how these strategies help them to achieve better results on exams. Participants from the University of Rijeka, University of Zadar, and University of Zagreb completed the survey that showed that students mostly do not recognize beneficial effects of testing as a strategy of learning. The only predictor that partially explains variance of grade point average is continuous learning through the academic year. There were 100 psychology students from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka that participated in the experiment. The aim of the experiment was to examine how memorization of paired associates and metacognitive judgments of learning depends on the context of learning (repeated vs. tested), delay period (immediate vs. delayed), and type of judgments (cue-only JOL vs. cue-target JOL). Results showed better memory for repeated than tested pairs in the immediate testing. However, in the delayed testing, participants showed better memory for tested that repeated pairs but only in the cue-only context. Results also showed higher judgments of learning in immediate testing than in testing delayed for seven days. Participants made higher judgments for tested pairs comparing to repeated pairs, but only in the delayed testing and cue-only context. Also, cue-target judgments were generally higher than cue-only judgments