19: Self Pacing

Effectiveness of Self-Paced Learning

Overview

  • Research study by Tullis & Benjamin (2011) focuses on the effectiveness of self-paced learning.

  • Examines how self-regulated learning impacts study choices and outcomes.

Self-Regulated Learning

  • Definition: Self-regulated learning involves students making choices in their study behaviors which directly affect their learning outcomes.

  • Key Elements:

    • Choice of items to re-study.

    • Scheduling of re-study sessions.

    • Accurate monitoring of learning progress.

    • Application of effective learning strategies.

How Learners Allocate Study Time

  • Positive correlation between item difficulty and study time; harder items receive more study time.

  • Discrepancy Reduction Theory (Dunlosky & Thiede, 1998):

    • Concept that students set a norm of what they wish to learn (goal) and study to decrease discrepancies between their current knowledge and that norm.

  • Region of Proximal Learning Theory (Metcalfe & Kornell, 2003):

    • Learners should continue studying until the “rate of return” (the improvement in learning) falls below a predetermined criterion.

Monitoring Learning

  • Inverse relationship between Judgment of Learning (JOL) and study time:

    • Items perceived as well-learned are studied for shorter durations.

  • Students often are not accurate in monitoring their memory performance.

    • Poor performance students may overestimate test scores by as much as 30%.

  • JOLs can be influenced by biases and false beliefs (e.g., beliefs regarding how font size affects learning).

  • Inaccurate monitoring can lead to ineffective study time allocation.

  • Delaying JOLs can improve study time allocation effectiveness.

Effectiveness of Self-Paced Learning

  • Numerous studies indicate that study time allocation can vary based on material types and task criteria.

  • Fewer investigations have delved into the overall effectiveness of self-paced learning, revealing conflicting results:

    • Self-paced study resulted in better performance compared to a fixed average study time group (Mazzoni & Cornoldi, 1993).

    • Studies showed that self-paced learners performed equivalently to control groups that studied for the total time that self-paced learners did (Koriat et al., 2006).

    • Engaging with more difficult items is not always the most efficient use of study time.

Experiment 1 (N = 148)

  • Objective:

    • Comparison of self-paced learning versus a yoked control group (participants studied the same items but for the average time chosen by the yoked partner).

  • Recognition Testing:

    • Recognize items based on whether they are old or new (old/new recognition test).

    • Study conditions varied between:

    • Study items for as long as one wishes

    • Study items for fixed time based on last participant's average study time.

  • Challenges Identified:

    • Recognition tests can hinder a learner’s ability to control their retrieval strategically.

    • Prior studies utilizing free recall indicated inconsistent results but recognition testing can adjust for decision-making variables.

Self-Pacing Strategies

Discrepancy Reducers vs. Discrepancy Increasers

  • Self-paced learning was found to improve recognition accuracy over fixed study time (matched total time).

  • Notably driven by those who studied harder items for longer durations.

  • Essential finding: Effective self-pacing is contingent upon executing self-pacing in the correct manner.

  • Experiment suggests the presence of item-selection effects; control groups exhibited varied performance based on their paired discrepancy reducers or increasers.

Experiment 2 (N = 234)

  • Design:

    • Replicate Experiment 1 while adding a third group with items studied for variable times based on normative difficulty.

    • Three experimental groups:

    1. Self-paced study

    2. Fixed study, aligned to the average of prior participants’ times

    3. Variable study times divided proportionally based on item discriminability from Experiment 1.

    • Group 3 aimed to consistently act as discrepancy reducers.

Combined Experiment Analysis

  • Results demonstrated:

    • Self-paced discrepancy reducers outperformed their self-paced discrepancy increaser counterparts.

    • No significant difference was observed in the control groups paired with either strategy.

  • Interaction noted between self-pacing (versus control) and strategy, indicating self-pacing only benefits when combined with a discrepancy reducing strategy.

  • Analyzed levels of item difficulty:

    • The diagonal line represented equal item difficulty in two study conditions.

    • Dashed line indicated the best fit of the data showcasing that overall difficulty was lower for the self-paced group compared to the fixed-rate group.

    • Slope of performance data was less steep than diagonal, suggesting self-pacing improved difficult items more so than easy items.

Discussion Points

  • Less than half of those using self-paced strategies adopted discrepancy reduction effectively.

  • Investigated reasons:

    • It is unlikely that motivational factors account for this as mean study time per word and standard deviation of study times remained similar between reducers and increasers.

    • Potentially low performance goals could lead to a preference for easier items rather than challenging ones.

    • However, similar total study times for both strategies contradict this assumption.

    • Possible explanations include difficulties in monitoring one’s learning or predicting outcomes of test conditions.

  • Self-paced study may enhance learning potential, yet learners might require additional support for monitoring.

Conclusion

  • Self-paced study shows promise in improving learning outcomes, contingent upon appropriate monitoring and strategic execution of study time allocation.

  • Ongoing exploration is needed to optimize self-regulated learning practices and to guide effective study methodologies among learners in varied contexts.