Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T06:32:00.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - General Learning Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abel, M. & Roediger, H. L. (2017). Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format. Memory and Cognition, 45(1),8192. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016–0641-8Google Scholar
Albaret, J. M. & Thon, B. (1998). Differential effects of task complexity on contextual interference in a drawing task. Acta Psychologica, 100(1–2), 924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Mustafa, A. A. (1989). Contextual interference: Laboratory artifact or sport skill learning related? (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
Andrews, S. E. & Frey, S. D. (2015). Studio structure improves student performance in an undergraduate introductory soil science course. Natural Sciences Education, 44(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2014.12.0026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(1), 616. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898X.8.1.6Google Scholar
Best, C. A., Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2011). The effect of labels on children’s category learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 33323336). Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Best, C. A., Yim, H., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). The cost of selective attention in category learning: Developmental differences between adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 105119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.05.002Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 392402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0272-7Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011–143823Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. K. & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory and Cognition, 41(5),671682. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0291-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 2531. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Albuquerque, P. B. (2012). Memory encoding of stimulus features in human perceptual learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 654664. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.675322Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., de Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). An in vivo study of self-regulated study sequencing in introductory psychology courses. Plos One, 11(3), e0152115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152115Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2014a). Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00936Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2014b). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory and Cognition, 42(3), 481495. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013–0371-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2015a). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22(1), 281288. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0676-4Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2015b). What you learn is more than what you see: What can sequencing effects tell us about inductive category learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 505. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2017a). The most efficient sequence of study depends on the type of test. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2017b). The sequence of study changes what information is attended to, encoded, and remembered during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Google Scholar
Chariker, J. H., Naaz, F., & Pani, J. R. (2011). Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1),1931. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021680Google Scholar
Cook, G. L. & Odom, R. D. (1992). Perception of multidimensional stimuli: A differential-sensitivity account of cognitive processing and development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(2), 213249.Google Scholar
Deng, W. S. & Sloutsky, V. M. (2016). Selective attention, diffused attention, and the development of categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.09.002Google Scholar
de Zilva, D., Mitchell, C. J., & Newell, B. R. (2013). Eliminating the mere exposure effect through changes in context between exposure and test. Cognition and Emotion, 27(8), 13451358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.775110Google Scholar
Dobson, J. L. (2011). Effect of selected “desirable difficulty” learning strategies on the retention of physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4),378383.Google Scholar
Elio, R. & Anderson, J. R. (1981). The effects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(6), 397417.Google Scholar
Elio, R. & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition, 12(1), 2030.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. & Kane, M. J. (2003). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control, 44, 145199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44005-XGoogle Scholar
Farrow, D. & Maschette, W. (1997). The effects of contextual interference on children learning forehand tennis groundstrokes. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 33, 4767.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 608628.Google Scholar
Gureckis, T. M. & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(5), 464481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454304Google Scholar
Hatala, R. M., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Practice makes perfect: The critical role of mixed practice in the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1726.Google Scholar
Hebert, E. P., Landin, D., & Solmon, M. A. (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low- and high-skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1),5258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607925Google Scholar
Higgins, E. J. (2017). The complexities of learning categories through comparisons. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 66, 4377. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.002Google Scholar
Higgins, E. J. & Ross, B. H. (2011). Comparisons in category learning: How best to compare for what? In Carlson, L., Holscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 13881393). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Horn, S. & Hernick, M. (2015). Improving student understanding of lipids concepts in a biochemistry course using test-enhanced learning. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 918928. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00133ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution and concepts: An experimental study. The Psychological Monographs, 28(1), 186.Google Scholar
Jones, M. & Sieck, W. R. (2003). Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 626640.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(2), 189217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096–3445.133.2.189Google Scholar
Kang, S. H. K. & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 97103. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D. & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327Google Scholar
Kioumourtzoglou, E., Kourtessis, T., Michalopoulou, M., & Derri, V. (1998). Differences in several perceptual abilities between experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and water-polo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(3), 899912. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1998.86.3.899Google Scholar
Kirchoff, B. K., Delaney, P. F., Horton, M., & Dellinger-Johnston, R. (2014). Optimizing learning of scientific category knowledge in the classroom: The case of plant identification. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 425436. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13–11-0224Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02127.xGoogle Scholar
Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 498503.Google Scholar
Kost, A. S., Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). Can you repeat that? The effect of item repetition on interleaved and blocked study. In Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D., & Maglio, P. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 11891194). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kurtz, K. H. & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4),239243. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040295Google Scholar
Lee, E. S., MacGregor, J. N., Bavelas, A., Mirlin, L., & et al. (1988). The effects of error transformations on classification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 6674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278–7393.14.1.66Google Scholar
Lee, T. D. & Magill, R. A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In Goodman, D., Wilberg, R. B., & Franks, I. M. (eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 322). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Li, N., Cohen, W. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Problem order implications for learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23(1–4), 7193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013–0005-5Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B. (2016). The benefit of self-testing and interleaving for synthesizing concepts across multiple physiology texts. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3), 329334. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00157.2015Google Scholar
Mack, M. L. & Palmeri, T. J. (2015). The dynamics of categorization: Unraveling rapid categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144(3), 551569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039184Google Scholar
Mack, M. L. & Preston, A. R. (2016). Decisions about the past are guided by reinstatement of specific memories in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex. Neuroimage, 127, 144157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.015Google Scholar
Markant, D. B. & Gureckis, T. M. (2014). Is it better to select or to receive? Learning via active and passive hypothesis testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(1), 94122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032108Google Scholar
Markant, D. B., Settles, B., & Gureckis, T. M. (2016). Self-Directed learning favors local, Rather than global, Uncertainty. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 100120. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12220Google Scholar
Markman, A. B. & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.129.4.592Google Scholar
Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. (2009). A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(6), 10501057. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.6.1050Google Scholar
Mathy, F., Haladjian, H. H., Laurent, E., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Similarity-dissimilarity competition in disjunctive classification tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Fadler, C. L., & Pashler, H. (2013). Effects of spaced versus massed training in function learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 14171432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032184Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. J., Nash, S., & Hall, G. (2008). The intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1),237242.Google Scholar
Monteiro, S., Melvin, L., Manolakos, J., Patel, A., & Norman, G. (2017). Evaluating the effect of instruction and practice schedule on the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(4), 237245.Google Scholar
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language, Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subject. www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdfGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, Crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165Google Scholar
Noh, S. M., Yan, V. X., Bjork, R. A., & Maddox, W. T. (2016). Optimal sequencing during category learning: Testing a dual-learning systems perspective. Cognition, 155, 2329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.007Google Scholar
Ostrow, K., Heffernan, N., Heffernan, C., & Peterson, Z. (2015). Blocking vs. interleaving: Examining single-session effects within middle school math homework. In Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., & Verdejo, M. F. (eds.), Artificial intelligence in education, Vol. 9112 (pp. 338347). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319–19773-9_34Google Scholar
Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.84.4.429Google Scholar
Palmeri, T. J. & Mack, M. L. (2015). How experimental trial context affects perceptual categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00180Google Scholar
Pani, J. R., Chariker, J. H., & Naaz, F. (2012). Computer-based learning: Interleaving whole and sectional representation of neuroanatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(1), 1118.Google Scholar
Patel, R., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. (2015). When to block versus interleave practice? Evidence against teaching fraction addition before fraction multiplication. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., & Trueswell, J. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 20692074). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Pigott, R. E. & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 4145.Google Scholar
Pinto-Zipp, G. & Gentile, A. M. (1995). Practice schedules in motor learning: Children vs. adults. Society of Neuroscience: Abstracts, 21, 1620.Google Scholar
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 483504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014–9273-3Google Scholar
Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355367.Google Scholar
Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 635643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015–9332-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(5), 13231330. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0588-3Google Scholar
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning, 107(3), 900908.Google Scholar
Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481498.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H. (2000). The effects of category use on learned categories. Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 5163.Google Scholar
Rozenshtein, A., Pearson, G. D. N., Yan, S. X., Liu, A. Z., & Toy, D. (2016). Effect of massed versus interleaved teaching method on performance of students in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13(8), 979984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.031Google Scholar
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2016). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
Sandhofer, C. M. & Doumas, L. A. A. (2008). Order of presentation effects in learning color categories. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(2), 194221.Google Scholar
Schlichting, M. L. & Preston, A. R. (2015). Memory integration: Neural mechanisms and implications for behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.07.005Google Scholar
Shea, C H & Kohl, R. M. (1991). Composition of practice: Influence on the retention of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(2), 187195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10608709Google Scholar
Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73(2), 145157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001–6918(90)90076-RGoogle Scholar
Shea, J. B. & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179187.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B. & Kemler, D. G. (1978). Levels of experienced dimensionality in children and adults. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 502532.Google Scholar
Sorensen, L. J. & Woltz, D. J. (2016). Blocking as a friend of induction in verbal category learning. Memory and Cognition, 44(7), 10001013. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016–0615-xGoogle Scholar
Spiering, B. J. & Ashby, F. G. (2008). Initial training with difficult items facilitates information integration, but not rule-based category learning. Psychological Science, 19(11), 11691177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02219.xGoogle Scholar
Ste-Marie, D. M., Clark, S. E., Findlay, L. C., & Latimer, A. E. (2004). High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(1), 115126.Google Scholar
Stewart, N. & Brown, G. D. A. (2004). Sequence effects in the categorization of tones varying in frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 416430.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2002). Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 311.Google Scholar
Strutt, G. F., Anderson, D. R., & Well, A. D. (1975). A developmental study of the effects of irrelevant information on speeded classification. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(1), 127135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022–0965(75)90032–6Google Scholar
Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(2), 3560363.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837848.Google Scholar
Terrace, H. S. (1964). Wavelength generalization after discrimination learning with and without errors. Science, 144(361), 7880.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. A. & Markson, L. (1998). Developmental changes in the effect of dimensional salience on the discriminability of object relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2445Google Scholar
Tse, C.-S. & Altarriba, J. (2010). Does survival processing enhance implicit memory? Memory and Cognition, 38(8), 11101121.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N. & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104Google Scholar
Unsworth, N. & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Variation in working memory capacity and episodic recall: the contributions of strategic encoding and contextual retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(2), 200205. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.200Google Scholar
Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory and Cognition, 39(5), 750763. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010–0063-yGoogle Scholar
Werner, S. & Thies, B. (2000). Is “change blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 163173. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062800394748Google Scholar
Whitman, J. R. & Garner, W. R. (1963). Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 195202.Google Scholar
Wulf, G. & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(2), 185211.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, T. & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776795.Google Scholar
Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 918933.Google Scholar
Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: AppliedGoogle Scholar
Zeithamova, D., Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2012). The hippocampus and inferential reasoning: Building memories to navigate future decisions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00070Google Scholar
Zulkiply, N. & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory and Cognition, 41(1), 1627. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0238-9Google Scholar
Zulkiply, N., McLean, J., Burt, J. S., & Bath, D. (2012). Spacing and induction: Application to exemplars presented as auditory and visual text. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 215221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.002Google Scholar

References

Andre, T. & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296307.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 2958.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213238.Google Scholar
Beleche, T., Fairris, D., & Marks, M. (2012). Do course evaluations truly reflect student learning? Evidence from an objectively graded post-test. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 709719.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417444.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Black-Maier, A. C., Campbell, K., Marsh, E. J., & Persky, A. M. (under review). Stabilizing access to marginal knowledge in a classroom setting.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high-confidence errors return. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(6), 12381244.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 273281.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 331340.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory and Cognition, 36(3), 604616.Google Scholar
Butterfield, B. & Metcalfe, J. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 14911494.Google Scholar
Butterfield, B. & Metcalfe, J. (2006). The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 6984.Google Scholar
Cantor, A. D., Eslick, A. N., Marsh, E. J., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Multiple-choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 43(2), 193205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014–0462-6Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 11231130.Google Scholar
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning a temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 10951102.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161199.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive science, 36(1), 161.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 85100). CRC Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, L. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders’ writings: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(3), 281309.Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227268.Google Scholar
Dibattista, D., Mitterer, J. O., & Gosse, L. (2004). Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple‐choice testing. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elawar, M. C. & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.77.2.162Google Scholar
Epstein, M. L. & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychological Reports, 90(3, suppl.), 11361138.Google Scholar
Epstein, M. L., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 889894.Google Scholar
Farragher, P. & Szabo, M. (1986). Learning environmental science from text aided by a diagnostic and prescriptive instructional strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6), 557569.Google Scholar
Fazio, L. K., Agarwal, P. K., Marsh, E. J., & Roediger, H. L., III (2010). Memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing on immediate and delayed tests. Memory and Cognition, 38(4), 407418. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.407Google Scholar
Fazio, L. K., Huelser, B. J., Johnson, A., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning. Memory, 18(3), 335350.Google Scholar
Fazio, L. K. & Marsh, E. J. (2009). Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 8892.Google Scholar
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 5162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883Google Scholar
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3), 906914.Google Scholar
Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6, Pt. 1), 503508.Google Scholar
Goldberg, R. F. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Developmental “roots” in mature biological knowledge. Psychological Science, 20(4), 480487.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 612618.Google Scholar
Hart, J. T. (1967). Second-try recall, recognition, and the memory-monitoring process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(4), 193197.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 7991. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021Google Scholar
Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). The costs and benefits of providing feedback during learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(6),797801.Google Scholar
Jost, A. (1897). Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in ihrer Abha¨ngigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholungen [The strength of associations in their dependence on the distribution of repetitions]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 16, 436472.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M. K., Jonides, J., & Alexander, J. (1986). Intuitive reasoning about abstract and familiar physics problems. Memory and Cognition, 14(4), 308312.Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory, 17(4), 471479.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362404.Google Scholar
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 12971317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537Google Scholar
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989998. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015729Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W. & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505512. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033243Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W. & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279308.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285291.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., & Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(5), 522528.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 7997. www.jstor.org/stable/1170349Google Scholar
Lhyle, K. G. & Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 320.Google Scholar
Lindsey, R. V., Shroyer, J. D., Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (2014). Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological Science, 25(3), 639647.Google Scholar
Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers and Education, 95, 8598.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Fazio, L. K., & Goswick, A. E. (2012). Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory, 20(8), 899906.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Lozito, J. P., Umanath, S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2012). Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test. Memory, 20(6), 645653.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 194199.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III, (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399414.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2011). People’s hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: Did they know it all along? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 437448.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2012). Hypercorrection of high confidence errors in children. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 253261.Google Scholar
More, A. J. (1969). Delay of feedback and the acquisition and retention of verbal materials in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(5), 339342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028318Google Scholar
Mullet, H. G., Butler, A. C., Verdin, B., von Borries, R., & Marsh, E. J. (2014). Delaying feedback promotes transfer of knowledge despite student preferences to receive feedback immediately. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 222229.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191196.Google Scholar
Núñez-Peña, M. I., Bono, R., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2015). Feedback on students’ performance: A possible way of reducing the negative effect of math anxiety in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 8087.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 38.Google Scholar
Peeck, J. (1979). Effects of differential feedback on the answering of two types of questions by fifth‐and sixth‐graders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(1), 8792.Google Scholar
Potvin, P., Masson, S., Lafortune, S., & Cyr, G. (2015). Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 2143.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Tanenbaum, R., McDaniel, M. A., & Wood, E. (1990). What happens when university students try to answer prequestions that accompany textbook material? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(1), 2735.Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 559579.Google Scholar
Renner, K. E. (1964). Delay of reinforcement: A historical review. Psychological Bulletin, 61(5), 341361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048335Google Scholar
Rich, P. R., Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2017). Belief in corrective feedback for common misconceptions: Implications for knowledge revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition, 43(3), 492501. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000322Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 2027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003Google Scholar
Sassenrath, J. M. & Garverick, C. M. (1965). Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 259263.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Bjork, R. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207217.Google Scholar
Sinclair, H. K. & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical Education, 41(6), 580582.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Slamecka, N. J. & Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 589607.Google Scholar
Smith, T. A. & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay–retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 8095. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017407Google Scholar
Surber, J. R. & Anderson, R. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 170173. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077003Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Mind wandering and education: From the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 495.Google Scholar
Terrace, H. S. (1963). Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6(2), 223232.Google Scholar
Tomas, C. (2014). Marking and feedback provision on essay-based coursework: A process perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 611624. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860078Google Scholar
Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., Van Gog, T., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Bruin, A. B. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 3948.Google Scholar
Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 6778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895752Google Scholar
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061Google Scholar
Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302314.Google Scholar
Zamary, A., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 1220.Google Scholar

References

Adesope, O. O. & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 250263.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W., Karthwohl, D. R., & Airasian, P. W. et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287298.Google Scholar
Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2014). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 206226). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556559.Google Scholar
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 174205). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction, 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Comenius, J. A. (1887). Orbis pictus. Syracuse, NY: Bardeen.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511525.Google Scholar
Ginns, P., Marin, A. J., & Marsh, H. M. (2013). Designing instructional text for conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 445472.Google Scholar
Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465477.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Issa, N., Mayer, R. E., Schuller, S., Wang., E., Shapiro, M. B., & DaRosa, D. A. (2013). Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Medical Education, 47, 388396.Google Scholar
Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, M., Mayer, R. E., & DaRosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45, 818826.Google Scholar
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329433.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178191.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 576597). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 247262). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, J. R. & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B. K., Woodworth, A., & Binkley, M. (eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. 95113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Low, R. & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 227246). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia learning and individual differences: Mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 636651.Google Scholar
Mautone, P. D. & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377389.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Multimedia literacy. In Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 359377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (ed.) (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 345368). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2014c). Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484490.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390397.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 239252.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 389395.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 345368). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 329339.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, H., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187198.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380386.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147154.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312320.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638643.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 379–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419425.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 3143.Google Scholar
McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
McLaren, B. M., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2011a). Polite web-based intelligent tutors: Can they improve learning in classrooms? Computers and Education, 56, 574584.Google Scholar
McLaren, B. M., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2011b). A politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent tutors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 7079.Google Scholar
Michas, I. C. & Berry, D. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555575.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358368.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156163.Google Scholar
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Cristmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791807.Google Scholar
Paivio, A, (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 6186.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom – I’m learning! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Rey, G. D. (2012). A review and meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 216237.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world-class e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction, 22, 92102.Google Scholar
Stull, A. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808820.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 7181.Google Scholar
van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 263278). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 98112.Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345376.Google Scholar
Yeung, A., Schmid, S., George, A. V., & King, M. M. (2009). Using the personalization hypothesis to design e-learning environments. In Gupta-Bhowon, M., Jhaumer-Laulloo, S., Wah, H. K. L., & Ramasami, P. (eds.), Chemistry education is the ICT age (pp. 287300). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 266277.Google Scholar

References

Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., McDermott, K. B., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Classroom-based programs of retrieval practice reduce middle school and high school students’ test anxiety. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 131139.Google Scholar
Agarwal, P. K., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). How to use retrieval practice to improve learning. Washington: University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 9 (pp. 89–132). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom testing. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 8999.Google Scholar
Belluck, P. (2011). To really learn, quit studying and take a test. New York Times. January 20, 2011.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A. & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In Healy, A., Kosslyn, S., & Shiffrin, R. (eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes, Vol. 2 (pp. 3567). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bjork, E. L., Little, J. L., & Storm, B. C. (2014). Multiple-choice testing as a desirable difficulty in the classroom. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 165170.Google Scholar
Bjork, E. L., Soderstrom, N. C., & Little, J. L. (2015). Can multiple-choice testing induce desirable difficulties? Evidence from the laboratory and the classroom. The American Journal of Psychology, 128, 229239.Google Scholar
Buhay, D. Best, L. A., & McGuire, K. (2010). The effectiveness of library instruction: Do students response systems (clickers) enhance learning? The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 5.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514527.Google Scholar
Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory and Cognition, 36, 604616.Google Scholar
Carey, B. (2010). Forget what you know about good study habits. New York Times. September 6, 2010.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrievalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 15631569.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Campbell-Ratcliffe, J., Murnane, H., & Perfect, T. (2007). Retrieval-induced forgetting in educational contexts: Monitoring, expertise, text integration, and test format. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 580606.Google Scholar
Chan, J. C. K. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 153170.Google Scholar
Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553571.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J. & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J. & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 3756.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glass, A. L., Brill, G., & Ingate, M. (2008). Combined online and in‐class pretesting improves exam performance in general psychology. Educational Psychology, 28, 483503.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702718.Google Scholar
Glover, J. A. (1989). The” testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392399.Google Scholar
Guynn, M. J. & McDaniel, M. A. (1999). Generate – sometimes recognize, sometimes not. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 398415.Google Scholar
Guynn, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., Strosser, G. L., Ramirez, J. M., Castleberry, E. H., & Arnett, K. H. (2014). Relational and item-specific influences on generate-recognize processes in recall. Memory and Cognition, 42, 198211.Google Scholar
Halamish, V. & Bjork, R. A. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 801812.Google Scholar
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct question on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212242.Google Scholar
Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?Psychonomic Bulletin and Review19, 126134.Google Scholar
Jacoby, L. L. & Hollingshead, A. (1990). Toward a generate/recognize model of performance on direct and indirect tests of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 433454.Google Scholar
Kang, S. H., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528558.Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469486. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017341Google Scholar
King, J. F., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval-practice. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 329343.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1978). More on recognition failure of recallable words: Implications for generation-recognition models. Psychological Review, 85, 470473.Google Scholar
Koriat, A. & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory and Cognition, 34, 959972. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193244Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 219224. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194055Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits – and costs – of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16(2), 125136.Google Scholar
Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 8597.Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Rhodes, M. G. (2013). Feedback reduces the metacognitive benefit of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 113.Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17, 493501.Google Scholar
Kuo, T. & Hirshman, E. (1997). The role of distinctive perceptual information in memory: Studies of the testing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 188201.Google Scholar
Lantz, M. E. & Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 280286.Google Scholar
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III (2008). Test‐enhanced learning in medical education. Medical Education, 42(10), 959966.Google Scholar
Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210212.Google Scholar
Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Pretesting with multiple-choice questions facilitates learning. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 294299). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning. Memory and Cognition, 43, 1426.Google Scholar
Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. (2016). Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information. Memory and Cognition, 44, 10851101.Google Scholar
Little, J. L., Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., & Angello, G. (2012). Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 23, 13371344.Google Scholar
Little, J. L., Frickey, E. A., & Fung, A. K. (2018). The role of retrieval in answering multiple-choice questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000638Google Scholar
Little, J. L. & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory and Cognition, 43, 8598.Google Scholar
Little, J. L., Storm, B. C., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). The costs and benefits of testing text materials. Memory, 19, 346359.Google Scholar
Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 756766.Google Scholar
Lyle, K. B. & Crawford, N. A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 9497.Google Scholar
Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 609616.Google Scholar
Martin, N. D., Nguyen, K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Structure building differences influence learning from educational text: Effects on encoding, retention, and metacognitive control. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 5260.Google Scholar
Mawhinney, V. T., Bostow, D. E., Laws, D. R., Blumenfeld, G. J., & Hopkins, B. L. (1971). A comparison of students studying-behavior produced by daily, weekly, and three-week testing schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 257264.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 5157.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & RoedigerIII, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 399414.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 494513.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Bugg, J. M., Liu, Y., & Brick, J. (2015). When does the test-study-test sequence optimize learning and retention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 370382.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516522.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A. & Masson, M. E. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(2), 371385.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 200206.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(1), 1826.Google Scholar
McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., III & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 321Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463477.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.” Psychological Science, 2, 267270.Google Scholar
Newble, D. I., Baxter, A., & Elmslie, R. G. (1979). A comparison of multiple-choice tests and free-response tests in examinations of clinical competence. Medical Education, 13, 263268.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. J. & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). The negative testing effect and the multifactor account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 12871293.Google Scholar
Pyc, M. A. & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88(2), 93134.Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory and Cognition, 28, 10041010.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retentionTrends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 2027.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181210.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., III, Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In Mestre, J. P. & Ross, B. H. (eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education, Vol. 55 (pp. 136). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 14321463.Google Scholar
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122124.Google Scholar
Soderstrom, N. C. & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 99115.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. K. & Mcdaniel, M. A. (2007). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: Dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 212218.Google Scholar
Trumbo, M. C., Leiting, K. A., McDaniel, M. A., & Hodge, G. K. (2016). Effects of reinforcement on test-enhanced learning in a large, diverse introductory college psychology course. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied.Google Scholar
Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 41, 429442.Google Scholar

References

Andersson, J. & Rönnberg, J. (1995). Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 199211.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., Bennett, W. Jr., McNelly, T. L., & Jordan, J. A. (1997). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 783791.Google Scholar
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Aron, A. (2010). When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory and Cognition, 38(3), 255264.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403436.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307359.Google Scholar
Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Bryner, S., & Thomas III, R. L. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 11761189.Google Scholar
Basden, D. R., Basden, B. H., & Galloway, B. C. (1977). Inhibition with part-list cuing: Some tests of the item strength hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 100108.Google Scholar
Bloodgood, J. W. (2002). Quintilian: A classic educator speaks to the writing process. Reading, Research, and Instruction, 42(1), 3043.Google Scholar
Blumen, H. M. & Stern, Y. (2011). Short-term and long-term collaboration benefits on individual recall in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 147154.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 3242.Google Scholar
Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory into Practice, 43, 2330.Google Scholar
Butera, F. & Darnon, C. (2017). Competence assessment, social comparison, and conflict regulation. In Elliot, A. J. & Dweck, C. S. (eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 192213). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Canham, M. S., Wiley, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When diversity in training improves dyadic problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 421430.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73105.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145182.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439477.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. & Wiley, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219243Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 13071310.Google Scholar
Collaros, P. A. & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159163.Google Scholar
Congleton, A. R. & Rajaram, S. (2011). The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 535551.Google Scholar
Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Savenye, W., & Leader, L. (1998). Effects of cooperative and individual learning during learner-controlled computer-based instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223244.Google Scholar
Darnon, C., Buchs, C., Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs. complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 139151.Google Scholar
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 766776.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741749.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human relations, 2, 129152.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497509.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada, E. & Reiman, P. (eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399483.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211245.Google Scholar
Finlay, F., Hitch, G. J., & Meudell, P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 15561567.Google Scholar
Gadgil, S. & Nokes‐Malach, T. J. (2012). Overcoming collaborative inhibition through error correction: A classroom experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 410420.Google Scholar
Geen, R. G. (1983). Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation/inhibition of learning. Motivation and Emotion, 7(2), 203212.Google Scholar
Goldbeck, S. L. & El-Moslimany, H. (2013). Developmental approaches to collaborative learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnel, A. M. (eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 4156). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 526.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. & The Middle-School Mathematics through Applications Project Group (MMAP). (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 85126.Google Scholar
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 30, 6584.Google Scholar
Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitama-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning: Toward collaborative knowledge creation. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 5773). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harkins, S. G. & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 12141229.Google Scholar
Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2013). Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 183.Google Scholar
Harris, C. B., Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2008). Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens when we remember together? Memory, 16(3), 213230.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Yuill, N., & Luckin, R. (2008). The influence of context-specific and dispositional achievement goals on children’s paired collaborative interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 355374.Google Scholar
Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., Sutton, J., Barnier, A. J., & McIlwain, D. J. F. (2011). We remember, we forget: Collaborative remembering in older couples. Discourse Processes, 48, 267303.Google Scholar
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517539.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (eds.). (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jeong, H. (2013). Verbal data analysis for understanding interactions. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 5773). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning, 4th edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 365379.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 1529.Google Scholar
Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681706.Google Scholar
Kelley, M. R. & Wright, D. B. (2010). Obtaining representative nominal groups. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 3641.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623655.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114130.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 3142.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306314.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615624.Google Scholar
Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 223251.Google Scholar
Kravitz, D. A. & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936941.Google Scholar
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822832.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319330.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644651.Google Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leidner, D. E. & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149163.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337372.Google Scholar
Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. U. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407415.Google Scholar
Meade, M. L., Nokes, T. J., & Morrow, D. G. (2009). Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task. Memory, 17(1), 3948.Google Scholar
Meade., M. L. & Roediger, H. L. (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory and Cognition, 30 (7), 9951009.Google Scholar
Mevarech, Z. R. (1985). The effects of cooperative mastery learning strategies on mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 372377.Google Scholar
Mugny, G., De Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulations in cognitive development. ln Doise, W. & Palmonari, A. (eds.), Social interaction in individual development (pp. 127146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 295322.Google Scholar
Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory. In Mullen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 125146). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Meade, M. L., & Morrow, D. G. (2012). The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(1), 3258.Google Scholar
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645656.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In O’Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. & Hmelo-Silver, H. E. (2013). What is collaborative learning: An overview. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 115). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109146.Google Scholar
Pereira-Pasarin, L. & Rajaram, S. (2011). Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Memory and Cognition, 39, 968976.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., Williams, K. D., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(4), 579582.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child, 2nd edn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1975/1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B. & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 7687.Google Scholar
Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 14351447.Google Scholar
Rajaram, S. & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649663.Google Scholar
Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes: Travail de rhomme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de I’lnstitut National Agronomique, 12, 140.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 2027.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181210.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(2), 365371.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235276.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69197). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201241.Google Scholar
Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448484.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. D. (2013). Learning to walk the talk: Designing a teacher leadership EdD program as a laboratory of practice. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 208220.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321354.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right … if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461494.Google Scholar
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S., … Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591618.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 84, 409422.Google Scholar
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 2151.Google Scholar
Souvignier, E. & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755771.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring the relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11, 273283.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241262.Google Scholar
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 816.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of management, 32(1), 2955.Google Scholar
Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31 (2), 207220.Google Scholar
Teasley, S. D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In Lajoie, S. P. & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tudge, J. (1989). When collaboration leads to regression: Some negative consequences of socio-cognitive conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 123138.Google Scholar
Tudge, J. R. H. & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36, 6181.Google Scholar
Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers, British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299316.Google Scholar
Voiklis, J. & Corter, J. E. (2012). Conventional wisdom: Negotiating conventions of reference enhances category learning. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 607634.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406423.Google Scholar
Weigold, A., Russell, E. J., & Natera, S. N. (2014). Correction of false memory for associated word lists by collaborating groups. The American Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 183190.Google Scholar
Weldon, M.S. & Bellinger, K.D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 11601175.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B. (2007). Calculating nominal group statistics in collaboration studies. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 460470.Google Scholar

References

Adams, D. M., McLaren, B. M., Durkin, K., Mayer, R. E., Rittle-Johnson, B., Isotani, S., & van Velsen, M. (2014). Using erroneous examples to improve mathematics learning with a web-based tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 401411.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669681.Google Scholar
Aleven, V. A. & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147179.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 932945.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774783.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345363.Google Scholar
Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 7087.Google Scholar
Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221252.Google Scholar
Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 2434.Google Scholar
Busch, C., Renkl, A., & Schworm, S. (2008). Towards a generic self-explanation training intervention for example-based learning. In Kirschner, P. A., Prins, F., Jonker, V., & Kanselaar, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008 (CD-ROM version only). Utrecht: International Conference of the Learning Science.Google Scholar
Chi, M. & VanLehn, K. (2010). Meta-cognitive strategy instruction in intelligent tutoring systems: How, when, and why. Educational Technology and Society, 13, 2539.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In Resnick, L. B. (ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145182.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self‐explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439477.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47, 177188.Google Scholar
Cho, Y. H. & Lee, S. E. (2013). The role of co-explanation and self-explanation in learning from design examples of PowerPoint presentation slides. Computers and Education, 69, 400407.Google Scholar
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 4th edn. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence‐based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Conati, C. & VanLehn, K. (2000). Further results from the evaluation of an intelligent computer tutor to coach self-explanation. In Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., & VanLehn, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 304313). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347362.Google Scholar
Curry, L. A. (2004). The effects of self-explanations of correct and incorrect solutions on algebra problem-solving performance. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Caro, M. S. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552568.Google Scholar
De Koning, B. B, Tabbers, H. K, Rikers, R. M. J. P, & Paas, G. W. C. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 183194.Google Scholar
Didierjean, A. & Cauzinille-Marmèche, E. (1998). Reasoning by analogy: Is it schema-mediated or case-based?. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 385398.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 458.Google Scholar
Durkin, K. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206214.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gartmeier, M., Bauer, J., Gruber, H., & Heid, H. (2010). Workplace errors and negative knowledge in elder care nursing. Human Resource Development International, 13, 525.Google Scholar
Große, C. S. & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122138.Google Scholar
Große, C. S. & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612634.Google Scholar
Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42, 929947.Google Scholar
Hilbert, T. S. & Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: Self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 267274.Google Scholar
Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Schworm, S., Kessler, S., & Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to teach with worked-out examples: A computer-based learning environment for teachers. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 24, 316332.Google Scholar
Hodds, M., Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2014). Self-explanation training improves proof comprehension. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 62101.Google Scholar
Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video, not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 95106.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. I. & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 12461252.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: Introduction to the special issue. Instructional Science, 38, 209215.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. & Singh, A. M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 831852.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227254.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Kiel, E. (1999). Erklären als didaktisches Handeln [Explaining as instructional action]. Würzburg: Ergon.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R. & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239264.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R. & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 6178). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: Comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 121.Google Scholar
McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & Rittle‐Johnson, B. (2013). Is self‐explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 615632.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 130.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 194206.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. R., Bol, L., Ross, S. M., & Watson, G. S. (2015). Paraphrasing and prediction with self-explanation as generative strategies for learning science principles in a simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 861882.Google Scholar
Nokes-Malach, T. J., VanLehn, K., Belenky, D. M., Lichtenstein, M., & Cox, G. (2013). Coordinating principles and examples through analogy and self-explanation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 12371263.Google Scholar
Oser, F. & Spychiger, M. (2005). Lernen ist schmerzhaft: Zur Theorie des Negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur [Learning is painful: On a theory of negative knowledge and on the practice of error management]. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. IES Practice Guide. NCER 2007–2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P. & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 235275.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 129.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2014a). Theoretische Konzepte und Prinzipien auf den Schulalltag beziehen: Ein wenig Theorie and darauf begründete Vorschläge für die Referendariatsausbildung [Relating theoretical concepts and principles to classroom practice: A bit of theory and delineated recommendations for teacher education]. Seminar, 2(2014), 916.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2014b). Towards an instructionally-oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 137.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2015). Different roads lead to Rome: The case of principle-based cognitive skills. Learning: Research & Practice, 1, 7990.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2017a). Instruction based on examples. In Mayer, R. E. & Alexander, P. A. (eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 2nd edn (pp. 325348). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2017b). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: Students relate procedures to principles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 571584.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1522.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., Hilbert, T., & Schworm, S. (2009). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: A cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 6778.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., Solymosi, J., Erdmann, M., & Aleven, V. (2013). Training principle-based self-explanations: Transfer to new learning contents. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 12051210). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90108.Google Scholar
Rittle-Johnson, B. & Loehr, A. M. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24, 15011510.Google Scholar
Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., & Durkin, K. (2017). Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 599611.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H. (1989). Remindings in learning and instruction. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 438469). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 6992.Google Scholar
Salden, R., Aleven, V., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2009). Worked examples and tutored problem solving: Redundant or synergistic forms of support? Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 203213.Google Scholar
Salden, R., Koedinger, K. R., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Accounting for beneficial effects of worked examples in tutored problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 379392.Google Scholar
Schalk, L., Saalbach, H., & Stern, E. (2016). Approaches to foster transfer of formal principles: Which route to take? PloS One, 11, e0148787.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 725.Google Scholar
Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, K., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 258266.Google Scholar
Schworm, S. & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers and Education, 46, 426445.Google Scholar
Schworm, S. & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285296.Google Scholar
Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 5665.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In Granott, N. & Parziale, J. (eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition Processes in Development and Learning (pp. 3158). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. & Chen, Z. (2008). Differentiation and integration: Guiding principles for analyzing cognitive change. Developmental Science, 11, 433448.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (1994). Discourse inference processes. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 479515). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and effects of example elaboration. Learning and Instruction, 12, 3960.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, 165169.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 5989.Google Scholar
Van der Meij, J. & de Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self‐explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation‐based learning environment. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 27, 411423.Google Scholar
Van Gog, T. & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155174.Google Scholar
VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513539.Google Scholar
VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 159.Google Scholar
Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on student’s problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233262.Google Scholar
Wylie, R. & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 413432). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, R., Koedinger, K., & Mitamura, T. (2010). Analogies, explanations, and practice: Examining how task types affect second language grammar learning. In Aleven, V., Kay, J., & Mostow, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 214223). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wylie, R., Sheng, M., Mitamura, T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Effects of adaptive prompted self-explanation on robust learning of second language grammar. In Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., & Mitrovic, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 588590). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1962). Strengthening the behavioral sciences. Science, 136(3512), 233241. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.136.3512.233Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., Villado, A. J., Boatman, P. R., Kowollik, V., Bennett, W. Jr., & Bhupatkar, A. (2007). Decay, transfer, and the reacquisition of a complex skill: An investigation of practice schedules, observational rehearsal, and individual differences. Woburn, MA: Aptima.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. & Longman, D. J. A. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21(8), 627635. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137808931764Google Scholar
Baldree, C. L. (2003). The effectiveness of two mathematical instructional programs on the mathematics growth of eighth grade students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Logan, J. M. (2007). Is expanded retrieval practice a superior form of spaced retrieval? A critical review of the extant literature. In Nairne, J. S. (ed.), The foundations of remembering (pp. 83105). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2006). Does expanded retrieval produce benefits over equal-interval spacing? Explorations of spacing effects in healthy aging and early stage Alzheimer’s disease. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 1931. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882–7974.21.1.19Google Scholar
Bare, C. E. & Mitchell, R. R. (1972). Experimental evaluation of sensitivity training. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 8(3), 263276. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637200800301Google Scholar
Benjamin, A. S. & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61(3), 228247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004Google Scholar
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(4), 635650. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000172Google Scholar
Bjerrum, A. S., Eika, B., Charles, P., & Hilberg, O. (2016). Distributed practice. The more the merrier? A randomised bronchoscopy simulation study. Medical Education Online, 21(1), 30517. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30517Google Scholar
Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Gernsbacher, M. A., Pew, R. W., Hough, L. M., & Pomerantz, J. R. (eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 5664). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Bloom, K. C. & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74(4), 245248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885317Google Scholar
Budé, L., Imbos, T., van de Wiel, M. W., & Berger, M. P. (2011). The effect of distributed practice on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics. Higher Education, 62(1), 6979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010–9366-yGoogle Scholar
Calder, K. M. & Gabriel, D. A. (2007). Adaptations during familiarization to resistive exercise. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 17(3), 328335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.02.006Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 369378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012–9205-zGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. K. & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name-learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 619636. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1101Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests to enhance 8th grade students’ retention of U.S. history facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 760771. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1507Google Scholar
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.132.3.354Google Scholar
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 10951102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02209.xGoogle Scholar
Cermak, L. S., Verfaellie, M., Lanzoni, S., Mather, M., & Chase, K. A. (1996). Effect of spaced repetitions on amnesia patients’ recall and recognition performance. Neuropsychology, 10(2), 219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894–4105.10.2.219Google Scholar
Christina, W. B. (1974). The effects of massed and distributed practice on the performance of a gross motor skill. (Master’s thesis). The College at Brockport, New York.Google Scholar
Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 215235. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099%960720(200005/06)14:3 %3C215::AID-ACP640%3E3.0.CO;2%961Google Scholar
Dail, T. K. & Christina, R. W. (2004). Distribution of practice and metacognition in learning and long-term retention of a discrete motor task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(2), 148155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2004.10609146Google Scholar
Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 63147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003–2Google Scholar
Dempster, F. N. (1987). Time and the production of classroom learning: Discerning implications from basic research. Educational Psychologist, 22(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2201_1Google Scholar
Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43(8), 627634. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.627Google Scholar
Descours, K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking. (Unpublished master’s thesis). York University, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
Diekelmann, S., Wilhelm, I., & Born, J. (2009). The whats and whens of sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 13, 309321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2008.08.002Google Scholar
Donovan, J. J. & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795805. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.84.5.795Google Scholar
Drake, J. B. (1981). The theory of distributed practice as related to acquisition of psychomotor skills by adolescents in a selected curricular field. The High School Journal, 65(1), 2632.Google Scholar
Drake, J. B. (1987). Effects of distributed practice theory on arc welding skill development of agriculture students. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 28(3), 1621. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1987.03016Google Scholar
Dritsas, A. (1950). A study to determine the effectiveness of a relative massing time pattern as compared with an additive time pattern on skill development in typewriting. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (trans. H. A. Ruger, C. E. Bussenius, & E. R. Hilgar). New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
El-Shamy, S. E. (1976). The effects of time-spacing on outcomes in assertion training for women: The effectiveness of a workshop model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1955). Statistical theory of distributional phenomena in learning. Psychological Review, 62(5), 369377. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046888Google Scholar
Farr, R. G., Dey, M. K., & Bloch, E. (1956). The airplane control test: A compensatory pursuit task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 6(3), 7780. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1956.6.3.77Google Scholar
Fishman, E. J., Keller, L., & Atkinson, R. C. (1968). Massed versus distributed practice in computerized spelling drills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(4), 290296. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020055Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, M. A. (1952). The effect of two time patterns on developing a secondary motor skill. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A. & Parker Jr, J. F. (1962). Factors in the retention and relearning of perceptual-motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 215226. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041220Google Scholar
Foot, V. (2016). Judging Credibility: Can spaced lessons help students think more critically online? (Unpublished master’s thesis). York University, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning, 3rd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects. American Psychologist, 39(4), 377385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.377Google Scholar
Gallagher, A. G., Jordan-Black, J. A., & O’Sullivan, G. C. (2012). Prospective, randomized assessment of the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of laparoscopic skills. Annals of Surgery, 256(2), 387393. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251f3d2Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (1976). Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90002–5Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 95112. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197590Google Scholar
Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014). Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children’s science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 266273. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2997Google Scholar
Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. et al. (2016). Distributed practice and retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning: A multi-classroom study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 700712. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3245Google Scholar
Goverover, Y., Hillary, F. G., Chiaravalloti, N., Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., & DeLuca, J. (2009). A functional application of the spacing effect to improve learning and memory in persons with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(5), 513522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390802287042Google Scholar
Green, J. L., Weston, T., Wiseheart, M., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2014). Long-term spacing effect benefits in developmental amnesia: Case experiments in rehabilitation. Neuropsychology, 28(5), 685. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000070Google Scholar
Griffin, C. S. (2009). A comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of traditional phonics-distributed practice, traditional phonics-massed practice, and incremental rehearsal on kindergarten students’ letter-sound correspondence performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Grote, M. G. (1995). Distributed versus massed practice in high school physics. School Science and Mathematics, 95(2), 97101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949–8594.1995.tb15736.xGoogle Scholar
Harden, R. M. & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599979752Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021Google Scholar
Hawley, K. S. (2002). Spaced-retrieval effects on name-face recognition in older adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
Hertenstein, E. J. (2000). The interaction between learning goal orientation and differentially distributed-practice training designs in labor education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1974). Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 7799). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L., Block, R. A., & Summers, J. J. (1973). Modality tags and memory for repetitions: Locus of the spacing effect. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(2), 229238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80013–1Google Scholar
Hood, T. & Ivie, S. D. (2003). Is Saxon Math the answer? Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 53, 6482.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I. (1939). Experimental studies in rote-learning theory. V. Comparison of distribution of practice in serial and paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(6), 622633. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062807Google Scholar
Hunt, B. J. (1969). The effects of massed and distributed practice on problem solving (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. M. & Smith, B. (1987). An evaluation of Saxon’s algebra text. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(2), 97102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1987.10885804Google Scholar
Jost, A. (1897). Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholungen [The strength of associations in their dependence on the distribution of repetitions]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 14, 436472.Google Scholar
Joy, J. M., Oliver, J. M., McCleary, S. A., Lowery, R. P., & Wilson, J. M. (2013). Power output and electromyography activity of the back squat exercise with cluster sets. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1, 3745.Google Scholar
Kang, S. H., Lindsey, R. V., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2014). Retrieval practice over the long term: Should spacing be expanding or equal-interval? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(6), 15441550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0636-zGoogle Scholar
Kapler, I. V., Weston, T., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Long-term retention benefits from the spacing effect in a simulated undergraduate classroom using simple and complex curriculum material. Learning and Instruction, 36, 3845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.001Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010). Sales training: effects of spaced practice on training transfer. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(1), 2337. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011010299Google Scholar
Kerfoot, B. P., Shaffer, K., McMahon, G. T., Baker, H., Kirdar, J., Kanter, S., Jr. Corbett, E. Berkow, C., Krupat, R., E., & Armstrong, E. G. (2011). Online “spaced education progress-testing” of students to confront two upcoming challenges to medical schools. Academic Medicine, 86(3), 300306. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182087befGoogle Scholar
Kiepert, M. H. (2009). An examination of repetition and the spacing effect in the classroom: A self-report survey of teachers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Kim, C. (2003). Cumulative review: Effects of random alternation of review items on mathematics problem solving. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.Google Scholar
Kleinman, M. (1976). The effects of practice distribution on the acquisition of three discrete motor skills. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 47(4), 672677.Google Scholar
Klingele, W. E. & Reed, B. W. (1984). An Examination of an incremental approach to mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(10), 712–13.Google Scholar
Knapp, C. G. & Dixon, W. R. (1950). Learning to juggle: I. A study to determine the effect of two different distributions of practice on learning efficiency. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 21(3), 331340.Google Scholar
Korben, D. L. (1976). The effects of distributed practice versus massed practice, and behavioral modeling versus script modeling, on assertive training with females. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimizing learning using flashcards: spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 12971317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits – and costs – of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16(2), 125136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701763899Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological science, 19(6), 585592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02127.xGoogle Scholar
Kreutzer, A. (2014). Acute kinematic, kinetic, and hormonal responses to cluster sets in parallel back squat exercise in trained and untrained young men utilizing hypertrophic intensities. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. (2014). Strong effects on weak theoretical grounds: Understanding the distributed practice effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 222, 7181. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151–2604/a000168Google Scholar
Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. & Erdfelder, E. (2012). Encoding, maintenance, and retrieval processes in the lag effect: A multinomial processing tree analysis. Memory, 20(1), 3747. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.631550Google Scholar
Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Erdfelder, E., & Dickhauser, O. (2014). The lag effect in secondary school classrooms: Enhancing students’ memory for vocabulary. Instructional Science, 42(3), 373388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013–9285-2Google Scholar
Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Kapler, I. V., & Wiseheart, M. (2014). Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval. Memory and Cognition. 42(5), 729741. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014–0394-1Google Scholar
Laing, R. A. & Peterson, J. C. (1973). Assignments: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow – Today. The Mathematics Teacher, 66(6), 508518.Google Scholar
LaRocco, A. J. (2008). An investigation of the repeated reading intervention for improving reading fluency: A doctoral dissertation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. (1915). The acquisition of skill in archery. Papers from the Department of Marine Biology of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 7, 105128.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. H. (1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(6), 770784. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058097Google Scholar
Lawton, T. W., Cronin, J. B., & Lindsell, R. P. (2006). Effect of interrepetition rest intervals on weight training repetition power output. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(1), 172176.Google Scholar
Lee, T. D. & Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(4), 277287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1988.10609373Google Scholar
Liang, R. A. (1970). Relative effects of massed and distributed scheduling of topics on homework assignments of eighth grade mathematics students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Lindsey, R., Mozer, M. C., Cepeda, N. J., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing memory retention with cognitive models. In Howes, A., Peebles, D., & Cooper, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on cognitive modeling (ICCM). Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Lu, P. K. (1978). Three integrative models of kinetic structure in teaching astronomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(4), 249255. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150403Google Scholar
Lynch, G. I. S. (1971). Effects of three practice conditions on the acquisition of golf skill. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
Mackay, S., Morgan, P., Datta,