Log in

goodpods headphones icon

To access all our features

Open the Goodpods app
Close icon
The Learning Scientists Podcast - Episode 50 - Metacognitive Monitoring of Adolescents and Young Adults

Episode 50 - Metacognitive Monitoring of Adolescents and Young Adults

09/17/20 • 22 min

1 Listener

The Learning Scientists Podcast

This episode was funded by listeners like you. For more details on how to help support our podcast and gain access to exclusive content, please see our Patreon page.

Show Notes:

In today’s episode, Althea covers a paper about metacognitive monitoring and differences between adolescents (ages 11-12) and traditional university-aged adults (ages 18-25) when using different learning strategies.

Students learned word pairs (moon - galaxy). Then, they either just restudied them, engaged in elaborative encoding by coming up with a third word that connected the two words (like space), or practiced retrieval (given the word moon, and asked to retrieve galaxy). During learning, the students made judgments of learning (or JOLs) about how well they thought they would do on an upcoming test. The researchers tested the students’ memories to see how well they learned the pairs.

The pattern of performance on the final test was generally the same. Retrieval practice led to the best performance, followed by elaborative encoding, and then the worst performance was restudying.

However, this isn’t new. The researchers are most interested in how well the students were able to monitor their own learning and predict how well they had learned the pairs. For the adolescents, their ability to judge how well they would do on a later test was not very accurate when they restudied or engaged in elaborative encoding. Their relative accuracy at judging how well they would perform was better for retrieval practice. So, the strategy that worked best also produced the best relative accuracy at predicting

The young adults showed the same relative accuracy as the adolescents in the restudy and the retrieval conditions. Their ability to predict was very poor after restudying and was better after retrieval practice. Interestingly, the young adults had the best relative accuracy after elaborative encoding, meaning that this was the condition where they were best able to predict how well they would perform on the test later.

When young adults in College (University) are utilizing a strategy that helps them learn more, like elaborative encoding or retrieval practice, they are better able to predict their own learning. However, this was not always true for adolescents in middle school. When using elaborative encoding, a strategy that helped them compared to just restudying, their predictions were not very accurate at all.

References:

Hughes, G. I, Taylor, H. A., & Thomas, A. K. (2018). Study techniques differentially influence the delayed judgment of learning accuracy of adolescent children and college-aged adults. Metacognition Learning, 13, 109-126.

plus icon
bookmark

This episode was funded by listeners like you. For more details on how to help support our podcast and gain access to exclusive content, please see our Patreon page.

Show Notes:

In today’s episode, Althea covers a paper about metacognitive monitoring and differences between adolescents (ages 11-12) and traditional university-aged adults (ages 18-25) when using different learning strategies.

Students learned word pairs (moon - galaxy). Then, they either just restudied them, engaged in elaborative encoding by coming up with a third word that connected the two words (like space), or practiced retrieval (given the word moon, and asked to retrieve galaxy). During learning, the students made judgments of learning (or JOLs) about how well they thought they would do on an upcoming test. The researchers tested the students’ memories to see how well they learned the pairs.

The pattern of performance on the final test was generally the same. Retrieval practice led to the best performance, followed by elaborative encoding, and then the worst performance was restudying.

However, this isn’t new. The researchers are most interested in how well the students were able to monitor their own learning and predict how well they had learned the pairs. For the adolescents, their ability to judge how well they would do on a later test was not very accurate when they restudied or engaged in elaborative encoding. Their relative accuracy at judging how well they would perform was better for retrieval practice. So, the strategy that worked best also produced the best relative accuracy at predicting

The young adults showed the same relative accuracy as the adolescents in the restudy and the retrieval conditions. Their ability to predict was very poor after restudying and was better after retrieval practice. Interestingly, the young adults had the best relative accuracy after elaborative encoding, meaning that this was the condition where they were best able to predict how well they would perform on the test later.

When young adults in College (University) are utilizing a strategy that helps them learn more, like elaborative encoding or retrieval practice, they are better able to predict their own learning. However, this was not always true for adolescents in middle school. When using elaborative encoding, a strategy that helped them compared to just restudying, their predictions were not very accurate at all.

References:

Hughes, G. I, Taylor, H. A., & Thomas, A. K. (2018). Study techniques differentially influence the delayed judgment of learning accuracy of adolescent children and college-aged adults. Metacognition Learning, 13, 109-126.

Previous Episode

undefined - Episode 49 - Learning Styles and Dual Coding

Episode 49 - Learning Styles and Dual Coding

This episode was funded by listeners like you. For more details on how to help support our podcast and gain access to exclusive content, please see our Patreon page. In today’s episode, we feature Peter Horneffer. Peter has been heavily involved in making medical education accessible, and one way has been through lecturio.com. You can learn more about his efforts by watching his TEDx talk.

Show Notes:

In today’s episode, Megan and Althea cover a paper that tests learning styles and dual coding theories within one experiment. The paper was written by Cuevas and Dawson (2018) and you can see the paper here.

References:

Cuevas, J., & Dawson, B. L. (2018). A test of two alternative cognitive processing models: Learning styles and dual coding. Theory and Research in Education, 16(1), 40-64.

Next Episode

undefined - Episode 51 - An Interview with Memory Expert Boris Konrad

Episode 51 - An Interview with Memory Expert Boris Konrad

This episode was funded by listeners like you. For more details on how to help support our podcast and gain access to exclusive content, please see our Patreon page.

Show Notes:

In Episode 51, Cindy interviews memory expert Boris Konrad (@borisnkonrad). Boris is an eight-time world memory champion, he has four entries in the Guinness Book of World Records, and he is the current president of MemoryXL. Cindy and Boris discuss memory techniques. Importantly, Boris discusses differences between memory techniques and learning techniques, the underlying neuroscience, and why they are both important for students.

Episode Comments

Generate a badge

Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode

Select type & size
Open dropdown icon
share badge image

<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/the-learning-scientists-podcast-81424/episode-50-metacognitive-monitoring-of-adolescents-and-young-adults-7687090"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to episode 50 - metacognitive monitoring of adolescents and young adults on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>

Copy