Mind wandering in and out of the Region of Proximal Learning

Mind Wandering in and out of the Region of Proximal Learning
Judy Xu & Janet Metcalfe
Correspondence: [email protected]
Department of Psychology, Columbia University
Mind wandering is characterized by task-unrelated thought and is associated with deficits in learning and memory.
Studies have found that learning is most efficacious when one studies materials in their own region of proximal
learning (RPL), which is comprised of materials just beyond one’s current grasp – i.e., the easiest unlearned items.
Studying
in RPL
Curiosity

Mind wandering

Learning

We hypothesized that studying materials in one’s own RPL, should elicit curiosity and attention. This would lead to
decreased mind wandering and would improve learning.
Experiments 1 & 2: Does studying in RPL reduce mind wandering?
Design
Pretest: to sort items into easy/learned, RPL, and difficult
Study: examine the impact of studying in RPL on mind wandering
• Word pairs blocked by condition (easy/learned, RPL, difficult)
Test: examine how learning changes when mind wandering during study
RED
<10s
TEST
10-20min
900ms
ROJO
Subject’s
Response
CAT
CATO
100ms
CAT
CATO
GATO
Feedback
RED
? f
1500ms
WATER
RED
ROJA
900ms
AGUA
Judgment of
Learning
(JOL)
Not at all
learned
<10s
Completely
learned
TAXI
? f
…
TAXI
__?__
<10s
<10s
Attention
Probe
TAXI
TAXI
TAXI
TAXI
TAXI
ON TASK
MIND WANDERING
900ms
TAXI
TAXI
0.6
Inaccurate
Highest JOLs
Difficult
REDPURPLE
PURPLE
PURPLE
Inaccurate
Lowest JOLs
MIND
ROJO
MORADO
MORADO
MORADO
0.5
Easy /Learned
0.5
Difficult
0.4
0.3
0.2
WANDERING
REDPURPLE
PURPLE
PURPLE
ON TASK
MIND
ROJO
MORADO
MORADO
MORADO
WANDERING
10s
10s
On Task
0.4
MW
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
1500ms
ON TASK
RPL
Experiment 1
Materials:
•
•
Accurate
+ High JOL (expt.1)
RPL
Proportion Correct
CAT
? f
STUDY
~12min
Easy/Learned
Criteria:
Proportion Mind Wandering
PRETEST
20-35min
Learning based on attentional state1
Proportion of Mind Wandering
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 1(n=23): F(2,42) = 4.33, p = .020
Experiment 2(n=26): F(2,50) = 9.23, p < .001
Expt 1: 144 Spanish-English pairs + 10 perfect conjugates
Expt 2: 144 Spanish-English pairs + 35 perfect conjugates
Experiment 2
Experiment 1: t(21) = 2.21, p = .038; d = 0.47
Experiment 2: t(18) = 2.86, p = .030; d = 0.66
1Degrees
of freedom differs since some subjects did not report any mind wandering
Experiment 3: How does mind wandering change over time and among individuals?
Design
Mind Wandering over Time
The following changes were made to the experiment:
Pretest: Items sorted into easy, medium, and difficult
• No initial response required
• JOLs replaced with ease of learning judgments (EOLs)
Study: Timing changed to 1400ms per word pair with 100ms ISI
Test: Categorize subjects as high or low performers based on
mean test 1 performance
Criteria:
Easy
15 highest EOLs
Medium
15 middle EOLs
0.5
Easy
0.4
Medium
Difficult
0.3
0.2
0.1
Medium
0.4
Difficult
0.3
0.2
0.1
Difficult
15 lowest EOLs
0
Study Block 1
• no perfect conjugates
References
Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159-163.
Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an
underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 230–236.
Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 530-542.
Thank you to everyone in the Memory & Metacognition Lab at Columbia for your input and support!
This research is supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation.
Study Block 2
Effect of Time: F(1,46) = 25.82, p <.001
Effect of Condition: F(2,92) = 2.88, p = .061
Time x Condition: n.s.
Materials: 45 Spanish-English word pairs
Acknowledgements
Easy
Proportion Mind Wandering
Paradigm
PRETEST  STUDY  TEST  STUDY  TEST
Proportion Mind Wandering
0.5
Mind Wandering
based on Test 1 Performance2
Conclusion:
0
Low Performers
High Performers
Low Performers (n=24): n.s.
High Performers (n=23): F(2,44) = 9.56, p < .001
2Results
are the same when using test 2 performance
1. Learning was worse during episodes of mind wandering
2. Studying materials in RPL diminished the rate of mind wandering
3. Mind wandering increased over time, but the specific items eliciting an individual to mind wander
differs based on expertise

Download Report