Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study?

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 356-363

  Tauber, Sarah K ^a   Dunlosky, John ^a   Rawson, Katherine A ^a   Wahlheim, Christopher N ^b   Jacoby, Larry L ^b  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Blocked versus interleaved practice; Concept formation; Metacognition; Self regulated learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874668910     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0319-6     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126-137. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2006. 02. 003.
2. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
3. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Stimulus similarity relations modulate benefits for blocking and interleaving during category learning. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Conference of the Psychonomic Society, Seattle, WA.
4. Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011). The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 899-912. doi: 10. 1037/a0023064.
5. Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125-157. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0277(94)90065-5.
6. Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24, 608-628. doi: 10. 3758/BF03201087.
7. Halford, G. S., Cross, G. W., & Maybery, M. T. (1984). Hypothesis-testing in conceptual rule identification. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 419-439.
8. Hertzog, C., Price, J., Burpee, A., Frentzel, W. J., Feldstein, S., & Dunlosky, J. (2009). Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: Inferential deficit or experimental artifact? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 155-173. doi: 10. 1080/17470210701855520.
9. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2011). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97-103. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 1801.
10. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the "enemy of induction"? Psychological Science, 19, 585-592. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2008. 02127.
11. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 85. 3. 207.
12. Toppino, T. C., Cohen, M. S., Davis, M. L., & Moors, A. C. (2009). Metacognitive control over the distribution of practice: When is spacing preferred? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1352-1358. doi: 10. 1037/a0016371.
13. Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39, 750-763. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-010-0063-y.
14. Wahlheim, C. N., Teune, R. K., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Birds as natural concepts: A set of pictures from the Passeriformes order. Retrieved from http://psych. wustl. edu/amcclab/AMCC%20Materials. htm.