| Abstract: | Reports an error in "Metacognitive control and the spacing effect" by Lisa K. Son (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2010[Jan], Vol 36[1], 255-262). In the article “Metacognitive Control and the Spacing Effect,” by Lisa K. Son (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2010, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 255–262), lenient scores were reported instead of strict scores in two Performance Data sections of the text. The strict scores were correctly used in the analyses and figures. On page 259, the data corrections are as follows: The mean level of performance for items that were massed was 17.3 rather than 27.48, whereas that of spaced items was 30.6 rather than 34.02. The mean performance for those items in which a spacing schedule was imposed was 22.6 rather than 28.90, and the mean for the massed items was 21.9 rather than 27.48. On page 260, the data corrections are as follows: The mean for the massed items was 5.0 rather than 10.3; for spaced items, the mean was 29.3 rather than 36.2. Children using the forced spacing strategy had a mean performance of 11.7 rather than 20.7. This mean score was still almost double that of the forcibly massed items, M = 5.2 rather than 11.1. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2009-24668-018.) This study investigates whether the use of a spacing strategy absolutely improves final performance, even when the learner had chosen, metacognitively, to mass. After making judgments of learning, adult and child participants chose to mass or space their study of word pairs. However, 1/3 of their choices were dishonored. That is, they were forced to mass after having chosen to space and forced to space after having chosen to mass. Results showed that the spacing effect obtained for both adults and children when choices were honored. However, using a spacing strategy when it was in disagreement with the participant’s own choice, or forced, did not enhance performance for the adults (Experiment 1). And although performance was enhanced for the children (beyond massing strategies), it was not as good as when the spacing decisions were self-chosen (Experiment 2). The data suggest that although spacing is an effective strategy for learning, it is not universal, particularly when the strategy is not chosen by the learner. In short, metacognitive control is often crucial and should be honored. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
