Learners associate higher effort with less effective study strategies, indicating negative connotations of effort¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Learners gave higher effort appraisals to interleaved practice yet evaluated it as less effective and chose it less often for future study. → Scheiter 2020

Evidence¶

Scheiter 2020¶

Scheiter, K., Ackerman, R., & Hoogerheide, V. (2020). Looking at Mental Effort Appraisals through a Metacognitive Lens: Are they Biased? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09555-9

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports, citing Kirk-Johnson et al. (2019), that learners who gave higher effort appraisals to interleaved practice (known to be more effective than blocked practice) nevertheless "evaluated interleaved practice as being less effective, and chose it less often as the preferred strategy for future st udy," suggesting negative connotations of effort.

"Although learners gave higher effort appraisals to interleaved practice, as expected, they evaluated interleaved practice as being less effective, and chose it less often as the preferred strategy for future st udy"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Qualitative findings: students initially held inaccurate beliefs about strategy efficacy, and high effort from interleaved practice was misinterpreted as a sign of poor learning — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Perceived effort is higher and perceived learning lower for interleaving than blocking, and experience-mediated increases in perceived learning raise interleaving choices — related
• In a within-subjects category-learning experiment, students reported higher mental effort and lower concurrent judgments of learning during interleaved than during blocked studying — a narrower finding that bears on this claim