Abstract
Principles of cognitive science hold the promise of helping children to study more effectively, yet they do not always make successful transitions from the laboratory to applied settings and have rarely been tested in such settings. For example, self-generation of answers to questions should help children to remember. But what if children cannot generate anything? And what if they make an error? Do these deviations from the laboratory norm of perfect generation hurt, and, if so, do they hurt enough that one should, in practice, spurn generation? Can feedback compensate, or are errors catastrophic? The studies reviewed here address three interlocking questions in an effort to better implement a computer-based study program to help children learn: (1) Does generation help? (2) Do errors hurt if they are corrected? And (3) what is the effect of feedback? The answers to these questions are: Yes, generation helps; no, surprisingly, errors that are corrected do not hurt; and, finally, feedback is beneficial in verbal learning. These answers may help put cognitive scientists in a better position to put their well-established principles in the service of children’s learning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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, 213–238.
Benjamin, A. S., &Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions.Journal of Memory & Language,55, 126–137.
Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.),Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Butler, D. L., &Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.Review of Educational Research,65, 245–281.
Butterfield, B., &Metcalfe, J. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1491–1494.
Butterfield, B., &Metcalfe, J. (2006). The correction of errors committed with high confidence.Metacognition & Learning,1, 69–84.
Carrier, M., &Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention.Memory & Cognition,20, 633–642.
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, 354–380.
deWinstanley, P. A., &Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader.Memory & Cognition,32, 945–955.
Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M. R. F., &Thiede, K. W. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning.International Journal of Cognitive Technology,10, 4–11.
Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten.Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 392–399.
Hirshman, E., &Bjork, R. A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 484–494.
Hogan, R. M., &Kintsch, W. (1971). Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 562–567.
Kelley, C. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 157–175.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 349–370.
Kornell, N., &Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of selfregulated study.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,14, 219–224.
Loftus, E. F., &Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 100–104.
McDaniel, M. A., Waddill, P. J., &Einstein, G. O. (1988). A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 521–536.
Metcalfe, J. (1998). Cognitive optimism: Self-deception or memorybased processing heuristics?Personality & Social Psychological Review,2, 100–110.
Metcalfe, J. (2006). Principles of cognitive science in education.APS Observer,19, 27–28.
Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (in press). Judgments of learning are directly related to study choice.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2007).The effects of generation, errors, and feedback on learning. Manuscript in preparation.
Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (in press). A cognitive-science-based program to enhance study efficacy in a high- and lowrisk setting.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., &Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 3–8.
Roediger, H. L., III, &Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention.Psychological Science,17, 249–255.
Schmidt, R. A., &Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training.Psychological Science,3, 207–217.
Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.
Slamecka, N. J., &Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 589–607.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N. Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generation, errors, and feedback. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 225–229 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194056
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194056