Empirical evidence demonstrates the superiority of interleaved over blocked learning schedules in inductive learning, yet many students believe the opposite. We investigated the effect of metacognitive activities on learners’ awareness of interleaved benefits. Participants experienced two learning schedules for different painting styles and took a transfer test. Then we manipulated the provision of post-test feedback for each schedule and metacognitive prompts to reflect on the learning schedules. Finally, participants were asked to choose a more effective schedule between the two. Although there were no significant effects of either the post-test feedback or metacognitive prompts, the performance difference between the two schedules significantly predicted participants’ schedule selection. The greater benefits from the interleaved schedule the participants experienced, the more likely they chose the interleaved schedule. Furthermore, participants’ responses to metacognitive prompts revealed that those who acknowledged spacing benefits from the interleaved schedule were more likely to choose the interleaved schedule.

The present study investigated whether judgments of learning (JOLs) and judgments of inference (JOIs) enhance the retention and transfer of previously studied text (backward effect) and newly studied text (forward effect). Participants read two different passages through Section A and B. After studying Section A, participants made either JOLs or JOIs on Section A, while the control group read texts without any interim judgments. Then all groups studied Section B and took a final test for Sections A and B. For Section A, there were no significant performance differences among the groups, showing no backward effect of metacognitive judgments on text learning (neither JOLs nor JOIs). In contrast, for Section B, the JOI group outperformed both the JOL and control groups on the transfer test, indicating a forward effect of JOIs on text learning. Metacognitive judgments with a higher-order learning goal appear to help subsequent learning of new material.

Testing on previously learned materials can enhance the learning of new materials studied after the test (the forward effect of testing). We examined how the timing of interim testing influenced subsequent learning. Participants studied trivia facts in two learning sections (A & B) and provided a mental effort rating for each section. Between the two sections, participants either restudied, took an immediate test, or a 15-min delayed test on Section A. They then proceeded to Section B and took a final test on both sections. The results demonstrated that both the immediate and delayed testing groups outperformed the restudy group on Section B, indicating that the forward effect of testing was independent of the test timing. Furthermore, the testing groups showed a bigger increase in their mental effort from Section A to B than the restudy group, suggesting that the forward testing effect occurred probably due to more mental effort.

The present study investigated whether making judgments of learning (JOLs) can enhance the learning of the studied materials (backward effect) and newly studied materials (forward effect) in inductive learning. In two experiments, participants studied various butterfly species through Sections A and B. After learning Section A, participants made either target-present JOLs, target-absent JOLs, or merely restudied Section A (Experiment 1). We also manipulated whether participants make an explicit retrieval attempt before making JOLs (Experiment 2). Then all participants learned Section B and took a final test for both sections. The results revealed that simply making target-present or target-absent JOLs did not produce learning benefits. However, when people made the target-absent JOLs combined with explicit retrieval attempts they outperformed the other groups in both sections, showing backward and forward effects of JOLs. In conclusion, JOLs seem to be effective only when learners actively retrieve the learned information while making metacognitive judgments.

The present study examined how testing of previously studied materials affects learners subsequent study time allocationwhen learning new materials. Participants learned the painting styles of various artists through two sections (Section A andB). After studying Section A for a fixed time, participants took a test or restudied for Section A and then studied anotherset of artists in Section B for unlimited time. The results showed that while total study time was not different in Section B,the test group outperformed the restudy group on the transfer test of Section B. The test group, however, allocated moretime in the early stage of Section B than the restudy group. Interim testing seems to inhibit study time decrease in theinitial phase of learning and encourage learners to use more effective strategies in their subsequent learning. These resultsalign with the encoding theory of the forward effect of testing.

Recent studies suggest that testing helps learning of materials studied after taking the test. However, it is not yet clearhow testing helps subsequent learning. The current study investigated whether testing benefit was due to test expectancyor adjustment of study strategies by contrasting pre-test and interim-test conditions in addition to the restudy controlcondition. Participants learned the painting styles of various artists that were divided into two sections. Participants hadeither a pre-test, interim-test, or interim-restudy on the first section before proceeding to the second section. On thefinal transfer test, the interim-test group outperformed those from the pre-test and restudy groups, implying that only theinterim-test effect existed, but not the pretesting effect. The result suggests that in inductive learning simply knowingabout the test format in advance of study session does not really help learning, rather it is important for learners to testthemselves after studying.

Learners are often unaware of effective learning strategies, hindering their actual utilization. We investigated intervention methods to increase the utilization of effective learning strategies in self-regulated learning settings, specifically focusing on the interleaving strategy in category learning. Undergraduate students were either informed or not about effective learning methods and studied painting styles of various artists in a self-paced order. In Experiment 1, participants who received instructions about specific goals and critical skills required for category learning at the beginning were more likely to recognize the importance of identifying between-artists differences, but did not necessarily increase interleaving during their study. In Experiment 2, however, participants provided with procedural and conditional metacognitive knowledge (i.e., why interleaving is effective and how to interleave exemplars) in the middle of their study significantly increased interleaved practices. Our findings suggest that enhancing metacognitive knowledge can help encourage the use of effective learning strategies in self-regulated learning.

Previous studies have suggested testing and feature highlighting each facilitates category learning. We investigated whether the beneficial effects of interim testing change with the presence of feature highlighting in natural category learning. Participants learned various rock categories that were divided into two sections. They studied a series of rocks with or without feature descriptions highlighted on each image and either took an interim test or not between the two sections. On the final test, participants classified studied and new rock exemplars from both sections. The testing group outperformed the no-testing group for both sections, indicating both backward and forward effects of testing. Such beneficial effects of testing occurred regardless of whether the feature highlighting was provided or not. The feature highlighting, however, showed negative effects on learning of both sections, suggesting that provision of explicit instruction may impede learning when it is not appropriately embedded in the learning material.