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
© Copyright 2025 ExpyDoc