Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 219–224 | Cite as

The promise and perils of self-regulated study

Applying cognitive psychology to education

Abstract

Self-regulated study involves many decisions, some of which people make confidently and easily (if not always optimally) and others of which are involved and difficult. Good study decisions rest on accurate monitoring of ongoing learning, a realistic mental model of how learning happens, and appropriate use of study strategies. We review our research on the decisions people make, for better or worse, when deciding what to study, how long to study, and how to study.

References

  1. Benjamin, A. S., &Bird, R. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions.Journal of Memory & Language,55, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier. In R. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.),Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Bjork, R. A. (2001, March). How to succeed in college: Learn how to learn.APS Observer,14, 9.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research.American Psychologist,43, 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlosky, J., &Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect.Memory & Cognition,20, 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koriat, A., &Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koriat, A., &Bjork, R. A. (2006a). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test.Memory & Cognition.34, 959–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koriat, A., &Bjork, R. A. (2006b). Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,32, 1133–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., &Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theorybased processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kornell, N. (2007).Choosing self-testing as a study strategy. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  14. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007a).Abstracting concepts and patterns: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  15. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007b).Optimizing self-regulated study: On the benefits’and costs’of dropping flashcards. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  16. Kornell, N., &Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,32, 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landauer, T. K., &Bjork, R. A. (1978). Optimal rehearsal patterns and name learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory (pp. 625–632). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Metcalfe, J., &Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 530–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Metcalfe, J., &Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation.Journal of Memory & Language,52, 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson, T. O., &Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.),Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Roediger, H. L., III, &Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention.Psychological Science,17, 249–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Simon, D. A., &Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 907–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: Children’s short-term versus long-term study strategies.Journal of General Psychology,132, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2007).Scheduling study: Time allocation and spacing. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  26. Thiede, K. W., &Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of selfregulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and selfpaced study time.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zechmeister, E. B., &Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don’t.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 41–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations