The effect of unsuccessful retrieval on children's subsequent learning

Developing Conflict Monitoring Abilities Predict Children's Revision of an Intuitive Theory

We investigated the role of children's conflict monitoring skills in revising an intuitive scientific theory. Children aged 5 to 9 (N = 177; 53% girls, data collected in Germany from 2019-2023) completed computer-based tasks on water displacement, a concept prone to misconceptions. Children predicted which of two objects would displace more water before receiving feedback. With increasing age, children showed slower response times for incorrect predictions (β = -0.04) and greater pupil dilation to unexpected outcomes (β = -0.04), indicating better conflict monitoring. Better conflict monitoring, in turn, predicted faster belief revision (β = 0.07). These findings suggest that conflict monitoring is crucial for learning in discovery-based activities.

Errorful learning of trivia questions and answers: The role of study time

Errorful learning-asking questions and forcing responding even before the correct answers are presented for study-has recently been proposed as a way of maximizing the effectiveness of study. However, much support for the superiority of errorful learning over standard learning via reading comes from studies employing pairs of words as study materials, which remain of little educational relevance. Studies using materials affording richer semantic processing, such as trivia questions and their answers, have shown benefits of errorful learning only when the errorful learning condition is granted additional time for formulating guesses. In the present study, we systematically examined the role of timing when comparing errorful learning and reading strategies applied to study of trivia questions and their answers. In Experiments 1 and 2, we obtained evidence for the superiority of errorful learning over reading when additional time was given to formulate guesses, but this superiority was abolished when the overall time to study was equated between the two learning strategies. We further examined the role of answer familiarity in Experiment 3, showing that incorrect guessing produced no benefit for learning regardless of whether the to-be-learned concepts were familiar or not. In Experiments 4 and 5, no benefits of errorful learning emerged when participants were required to guess responses to two different questions that shared a common set of possible answers. We conclude that the benefits of errorful learning for trivia questions emerge only when guessing gives more time to process target questions.

Do Children (and Adults) Benefit From a Prediction Error Boost in One-Shot Word Learning?

Influential theories and computational models suggest error-based learning plays an important role in language acquisition: Children learn new words by generating predictions about upcoming utterances and revising those predictions when they are erroneous. Critically, revising stronger (rather than weaker) predictions should further enhance learning. Although previously demonstrated in adults, such prediction error boost has not been conclusively shown in children. To close this gap, we tested 107 participants between the ages of 5 and 10. We found little evidence that word learning in this age group benefits from a prediction error boost. Moreover, we also failed to replicate previous evidence for such an effect in adults. Based on a detailed task analysis, we suggest the variation in adult findings may be partly explained by differences in encoding strategies and that, relatedly, the protracted development of the episodic memory system might explain why children do not experience robust benefits from having stronger (rather than weaker) predictions disconfirmed.

Prediction error and memory across the lifespan

The influence of Prediction Errors (PEs) on episodic memory has generated growing empirical and theoretical interest. This review explores how the relationship between PE and memory may evolve throughout lifespan. Drawing upon the predictive processing framework and the Predictive, Interactive Multiple Memory System (PIMMS) model in particular, the paper highlights the hierarchical organization of memory systems and the interaction between top-down predictions and bottom-up sensory input, proposing that PEs promote synaptic change and improve encoding and consolidation processes. We discuss the neuroscientific mechanisms underlying PE-driven memory enhancement, focusing on the involvement of the hippocampus, the entorhinal cortex-hippocampus pathway, and the noradrenergic sympathetic system. Recognizing the divergent trajectories of episodic and semantic memory across the lifespan is crucial when examining the effects of PEs on memory. This review underscores the heterogeneity of memory processes and neurocognitive mechanisms underlying PE-driven memory enhancement across age. Future research is suggested to directly compare neural networks involved in learning from PEs across different age groups and to contribute to a deeper understanding of PE-driven learning across age.

Psychological support and strategies for raising motivation in fresh students

The goal of this study was to investigate the of fear of starting university training, determine its general characteristics, and test how providing psychological and motivational support for university enrollees may influence the elimination of this type of fear. The study used a random sample of 536 individuals, 268 participants each from one university in the Russian Federation and one from China, who were also randomly selected. Approximately equivalent experimental and control groups (134 people) were formed. The main experiment was conducted simultaneously for Chinese and Russian groups of participants under the same conditions. The modified Kessler psychological distress scale (K10) was used to measure fear of starting training 10 days before training and 2 days after. The experimental group received a special 7-step training to overcome fear and prepare for learning; results between groups and results before and after the start of training were compared using Student's t-test. Test scores for each participant were tested using Pearson's correlation to establish an association with the intervention for the majority of participants. In sum, the results of the carried out testing demonstrate a marked reduction in fear and stress after the start of training for both groups of both universities. Those students who have already experienced support show lower levels of fear of starting a course than those who have not received any help. The results of this study can be used to prepare university applicants for their future studies.

Can we learn from errors? Retrieval facilitates the correction of false memories for pragmatic inferences

Errorful learning suggests that, when perfect learning has not yet been attained, errors can enhance future learning if followed by corrective feedback. Research on memory updating has shown that after retrieval, memory becomes more malleable and prone to change. Thus, retrieval of a wrong answer might provide a good context for the incorporation of feedback. Here, we tested this hypothesis using sentences including pragmatic sentence implications, commonly used for the study of false memories. Across two experiments with young adults, we hypothesized that corrective feedback would be more efficient at reducing false memories if provided immediately after retrieval, when memory is more malleable than after being exposed to the material. Participants’ memory was assessed as a function of the type of learning task (Experiment 1: retrieval vs. restudy; and Experiment 2: active vs. passive recognition); and whether participants received corrective feedback or not. In both experiments, we observed that retrieval not only improved correct recall (replicating the testing effect) but also promoted the correction of false memories. Notably, corrective feedback was more effective when given after errors that were committed during retrieval rather than after restudy (Experiment 1) or after passive recognition (Experiment 2). Our results suggest that the benefits of retrieval go beyond the testing effect since it also facilitates false memories correction. Retrieval seems to enhance memory malleability, thus improving the incorporation of feedback, compared to the mere presentation of the information. Our results support the use of learning strategies that engage in active and explicit retrieval because, even if the retrieved information is wrong—when immediate feedback is provided—memory updating is promoted and errors are more likely to be corrected.

Does testing enhance new learning because it insulates against proactive interference?

Taking a test on previously learned material can enhance new learning. One explanation for this forward testing effect is that retrieval inoculates learners from proactive interference (PI). Although this release-from-PI account has received considerable empirical support, most extant evidence is correlational rather than causal. We tested this account by manipulating the level of PI that participants experience as they studied several lists while receiving interpolated tests or not. In Experiments 1 and 2, we found that testing benefited new learning similarly regardless of PI level. These results contradict those from Nunes and Weinstein (Memory, 20(2), 138-154, 2012), who found no forward testing effect when encoding conditions minimized PI. In Experiments 3 and 4, we failed to replicate their results. Together, our data indicate that reduced PI might be a byproduct, rather than a causal factor, of the forward testing effect.

Unraveling the benefits of experiencing errors during learning: Definition, modulating factors, and explanatory theories

Making errors is part of human nature, and it is thus important to know how to get the best out of them. Experimental evidence has shown that generating errors can enhance learning when these are followed by corrective feedback. However, little is known about the specific conditions and mechanisms that underlie this benefit of experiencing errors. This review aimed to shed some light on this type of learning. First, we highlight certain conditions that may influence errorful learning. These include the timing of corrective feedback, error types, learner awareness about errorful learning, motivation to learn the study material, differences in special populations (e.g., amnesia), incidental versus intentional encoding, the importance of selecting an appropriate final test procedure, whether the study material needs to be semantically related, and if it is necessary to recover the previous errors at the time of retrieval. We then consider four explanatory theories of errorful learning: (1) The Mediator Effectiveness hypothesis, (2) the Search Set theory, (3) the Recursive Reminding theory, and (4) the Error Prediction theory. According to these theories, two factors are decisive for observing the benefits of errorful learning: the level of a pre-existing semantic relationship between the study materials, and whether the error must be explicitly recovered on the final test. To conclude, we discuss some limitations of using a pretesting procedure to study errorful learning and we reflect on further research. This review brings us closer to understanding why experiencing errors confers a memory advantage.

Pretesting boosts item but not source memory

Two experiments examined the effect of pretesting on target recognition and source memory. In an initial encoding phase, participants attempted to learn the common English definitions of rare English words. For each rare word, the participants either guessed the definition of the rare English word before it was revealed (Pretest condition) or just studied the complete word pair without first guessing the definition (Read-only condition). To manipulate source information, the targets were either presented in different colours (Experiment 1) or lists (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the participants correctly recognised more targets from Pretest trials than Read-only trials, but showed no difference in source memory. Pretesting, therefore, appears to improve target recognition memory, but not memory for contextual information. The results are discussed in relation to semantic and episodic theories of the pretesting effect.

Memory updating after retrieval: when new information is false or correct

We conducted three experiments testing the malleability of memory in incorporating new information following retrieval. All experiments used associative lists typical of the DRM paradigm [Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(1), 17-22; Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814]. This paradigm enabled the evaluation of the integration of false information and correct information with the original information. In Experiment 1, participants studied DRM lists, and in a later phase either retrieved or restudied the lists and were presented with never-presented critical lures. The results of Experiment 1 showed that compared to restudy, retrieval enhanced the integration of subsequent false information, as measured by later recall in a follow-up test. In Experiments 2 and 3, after initial study, participants retrieved or studied incorrect information and received corrective feedback. The results showed that retrieval led to more error correction than restudy, when feedback was presented immediately. In general, this research suggests retrieval facilitates incorporation of new, related information, regardless of whether it is false or correct.

The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect

Relative to studying alone, guessing the meanings of unknown words can improve later recognition of their meanings, even if those guesses were incorrect – the pretesting effect (PTE). The error-correction hypothesis suggests that incorrect guesses produce error signals that promote memory for the meanings when they are revealed. The current research sought to test the error-correction explanation of the PTE. In three experiments, participants studied unfamiliar Finnish-English word pairs by either studying each complete pair or by guessing the English translation before its presentation. In the latter case, the participants also guessed which of two categories the word belonged to. Hence, guesses from the correct category were semantically closer to the true translation than guesses from the incorrect category. In Experiment 1, guessing increased subsequent recognition of the English translations, especially for translations that were presented on trials in which the participants’ guesses were from the correct category. Experiment 2 replicated these target recognition effects while also demonstrating that they do not extend to associative recognition performance. Experiment 3 again replicated the target recognition pattern, while also examining participants’ metacognitive recognition judgments. Participants correctly judged that their memory would be better after small than after large errors, but incorrectly believed that making any errors would be detrimental, relative to study-only. Overall, the data are inconsistent with the error-correction hypothesis; small, within-category errors produced better recognition than large, cross-category errors. Alternative theories, based on elaborative encoding and motivated learning, are considered.

Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age?

Generative learning strategies are intended to improve students’ learning by prompting them to actively make sense of the material to be learned. But are they effective for all students? This review provides an overview of six popular generative learning strategies: concept mapping, explaining, predicting, questioning, testing, and drawing. Its main purpose is to review for what ages the effectiveness of these strategies has been demonstrated and whether there are indications of age-related differences in their effectiveness. The description of each strategy covers (1) how it is supposed to work, (2) the evidence on its effectiveness in different age groups, and (3) if there are age-related differences in its effectiveness. It is found that while all six generative learning strategies reviewed have proven effective for university students, evidence is mixed for younger students. Whereas some strategies (practice testing, predicting) seem to be effective already in lower-elementary-school children, others (drawing, questioning) seem to be largely ineffective until secondary school. The review closes with a call for research on the cognitive and metacognitive prerequisites of generative learning that can explain these differences.

Why Behavioral Indicators May Fail to Reveal Mental States: Individual Differences in Arousal-Movement Pattern Relationships

It is commonly assumed that behavior reflects the mental states of individuals. However, recent attempts to detect human states of mind via behavioral indicators have not always been successful; behavioral indicators may be unreliable and invalid. In this study we show that one of the common behavioral indicators, change in the overall amount of movement, correlated well with changes in the skin conductance level (SCL) at the group level, which reflects changes in arousal. At the individual level, however, changes in the SCL were related to movement patterns only in about half of the individuals. It is also noteworthy that the level of movement-SCL correlation was very highly predictable by certain social and cognitive characteristics of the individuals. Our results suggest that behavioral indicators may in many cases fail to predict mental states at the individual level.

Retrieval-Based Learning in Children

Testing oneself with flash cards, using a clicker to respond to a teacher’s questions, and teaching another student are all effective ways to learn information. These learning strategies work, in part, because they require the retrieval of information from memory, a process known to enhance later memory. However, little research has directly examined retrieval-based learning in children. We review the emerging literature on the benefits of retrieval-based learning for preschool and elementary school students and draw on other literatures for further insights. We reveal clear evidence for the benefits of retrieval-based learning in children (starting in infancy). However, we know little about the developmental trajectory. Overall, the benefits are largest when the initial retrieval practice is effortful but successful.