This study is the first to investigate how an online course consisting solely of multiple-choice questions and detailed formative feedback comparesto an online course format that was previously shown to be highlyeffective. Specifically, a pure question-based learning (pQBL) version ofa course was compared to a question-based learning course (QBL)which consisted of the same questions and feedback as the pQBLcourse, but also included ordinary texts about the subject. To explorehow pQBL and QBL compared in terms of learning outcomes andcompletion time, 492 employees at the Swedish Employment Agencywere randomized to either a pQBL or a QBL version of a course aboutIT security. The results indicate that the pQBL course resulted in equallygood or better learning outcomes compared to the QBL course. Thisresult was robust to changes in how course quality was defined. Inaddition, participants completed the pQBL course slightly faster.Because a pQBL course requires less resources to produce, there arebenefits to relying on the pQBL method when teachers or studentshave limited time. Further benefits that come with the flexibility of thepQBL method are discussed

We have evaluated a new pedagogical approach, pure question-based learning, or rather, a modern, digitized version of a really old approach: the Socratic method of learning. The pedagogical approach was evaluated and improved using a design-based research methodology. An online course was developed with pure question-based learning to explain its predecessor: question-based learning. The course was successively taken by students, researchers, and practitioners, and discussed in four group seminars. Feedback from each iteration was integrated into the next version and the course is still in use, see link below. Results from the design-based research process were positive ((Formula presented.) participants, over four iterations) with the main negative results coming from the unfamiliarity of the format and feelings of exam-like stress during the first encounter. While pure question-based learning is new, it builds upon well-tested pedagogical methods. The method has several potential advantages: learning can be broken down into smaller modules, there is less passive learning for the students, less learning material needs to be created and AI could be used for this creation.

Background: Postsecondary students need to be able to handle self-regulated learning and manage schedules set by instructors. This is particularly the case with online courses, as they often come with a limited number of social reminders and less information directly from the teacher compared to courses with physical presence. This may increase procrastination and reduce timeliness of the students. Reminders may be a tool to improve the timeliness of students' study behavior, but previous research shows that the effect of reminders differs between types of reminders, whether the reminder is personalized or general, and depending on the background of the students. In the worst cases, reminders can even increase procrastination. Objective: The aim of this study was to test if personalized email reminders, as compared to general email reminders, affect the time to completion of scheduled online coursework. The personalized reminders included information on which page in the online material the participants ought to be on at the present point in time and the last page they were on during their last session. The general reminders only contained the first part of this information: where they ought to be at the present point in time. Methods: Weekly email reminders were sent to all participants enrolled in an online program, which included 39 professional learners from three East African countries. All participants in the Online Education for Leaders in Nutrition and Sustainability program, which uses a question-based learning methodology, were randomly assigned to either personalized or general reminders. The structure of the study was AB-BA, so that group A received personalized reminders for the first unit, then general reminders for the rest of the course, while group B started with general reminders and received personalized reminders only in the third (and last) unit in the course. Results: In total, 585 email reminders were distributed, of which 390 were general reminders and 195 were personalized. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the difference in the probability of being on time with one's studies. The probability of being on time was 14 percentage points (95% credible interval 3%-25%) higher following personalized reminders compared to that following general reminders. For a course with 100 participants, this means 14 more students would be on time. Conclusions: Personalized reminders had a greater positive effect than general reminders for a group of adults working full-time while enrolled in our online educational program. Considering how small the intervention was-adding a few words with the page number the student ought to be on to a reminder-we consider this effect fairly substantial. This intervention could be repeated manually by anyone and in large courses with some basic programming.

This study investigated what psychological and social factors predict ‘perceived nativelikeness’ in late second language (L2) learners of French (L1 Swedish) (N = 62) with a minimum length of residence (LOR) of 5 years in France. The included factors were: language aptitude (LLAMA), acculturation (VIA), personality (MPQ), target language engagement and social networks (number of relations in L2). LOR and Length of French studies were also included as extraneous variables. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that positive effects were found for LLAMA D (sound recognition), acculturation (VIA France and VIA Sweden), number of relations in L2 and LOR. A negative effect was found for the personality variable Social initiative. The strongest effects were found for LLAMA D, Social initiative and LOR. All variables together explained 25% (adjusted R²) of the variance in the sample, which represents medium-sized effects in relation to other studies on individual factors. In sum, these findings confirm results from earlier studies on the importance of language aptitude and acculturation in late L2 acquisition. They also add evidence of the importance of personality, social networks, and LOR. On a more general note psychological and social factors combine to explain different outcomes in adult L2 acquisition, although the effects of psychological variables are deemed somewhat stronger. 

In a European context, where member states of the European Union share a common language policy, multilingualism and foreign language (FL) learning are strongly promoted. The goal is that citizens learn two FLs in addition to their first language(s) (L1). However, it is unclear to what extent the multilingual policy is relevant in people's lives, at a time when the English language is established as a lingua franca. This survey-based study contributes insights into the relevance of the EU multilingual policy in an intra-European migration context, by focusing on Swedish migrants (n = 199) in France, who are L1 speakers of Swedish. We investigated the perceived importance of skills in FL French, FL English, and L1 Swedish, for professional and personal life. The quantitative analyses showed that participants perceive skills in French and in English to be equally important for professional life, whereas skills in Swedish were perceived to be less important. For personal life, skills in French were perceived as the most important, followed by skills in English, and then Swedish. In conclusion, the European multilingual language policy appears to be reflected in Europeans' lives, at least in the case of Swedish migrants in France.

When making memory predictions (judgments of learning; JOLs), people typically underestimate the recall gain across multiple study–test cycles, termed the underconfidencewith-practice (UWP) effect. This is usually studied with verbal materials, but little is known about how people repeatedly learn and monitor their own actions and to what extent retrieval practice via interim tests influence the progression of JOLs across cycles. Using action phrases (i.e., squeeze the lemon) as learning material, we demonstrated the UWP effect after both verbal and enactive encoding, although we did not get first-cycle overconfidence. As predicted, participants exhibited underconfidence in Cycles 2 and 3, as an error of calibrations. However, people’s resolution of JOLs (i.e., ability to discriminate recalled from unrecalled items) increased across study–test cycles. Importantly, JOLs for study–test (relative to study–study) items increased faster across cycles suggesting that repeated study–test practice not only produces underconfidence across cycles, but also reduces underconfidence relative to study–study practice. We discuss these findings in terms of current explanations of the underconfidence-with-practice effect.

Metacognition is a broad term that means different things to researchers in different sub-areas. A major contribution of Anastastia Efklides is to bring together disparate approaches in metacognition under one theoretical perspective. In this paper, we examine the concept of fluency and how it has been employed in metacognition research. Fluency-based judgments are generally considered to be the primary source of inaccuracy of metacognitive judgments as well as the primary reason why metacognitive control goes astray in self-regulated learning. We discuss how and when fluent processing influences metacognition, when fluency leads to accurate judgments and when it leads to illusions.

Processing fluency influences many types of judgments. Some metacognitive research suggests that the influence of processing fluency may be mediated by participants’ beliefs. The current study explores the influence of processing fluency and beliefs on ease-of-learning (EOL) judgments. In two experiments (Exp 1: n = 94; Exp 2: n = 146), participants made EOL judgments on 24 six-letter concrete nouns, presented in either a constant condition (high fluency) with upper-case letters (e.g., BUCKET) or an alternating condition (low fluency) with mixed upper- and lower-case letters (e.g., bUcKeT). After judging words individually, participants studied the words and completed a free recall test. Finally, participants indicated what condition they believed made the words more likely to be learned. Results show constant-condition words were judged as more likely to be learned than alternating condition words, but the difference varied with beliefs. Specifically, the difference was biggest when participants believed the constant condition made words more likely to be learned, followed by believing there was no difference, and then believing the alternating condition made words more likely to be learned. Thus, we showed that processing fluency has a direct effect on EOL judgments, but the effect is moderated by beliefs.

When people begin to study new material, they may first judge how difficult it will be to learn. Surprisingly, these ease of learning (EOL) judgments have received little attention by metacognitive researchers so far. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate how well EOL judgments can predict actual learning, and what factors may moderate their relative accuracy. In three experiments, undergraduate psychology students made EOL judgments on, then studied, and were tested on, lists of word-pairs (e.g., sun – warm). In Experiment 1, the Goodman-Kruskal gamma (G) correlations showed that EOL judgments were accurate (G = .74) when items varied enough in difficulty to allow for proper discrimination between them, but were less accurate (G = .21) when variation was smaller. Furthermore, in Experiment 1 and 3, we showed that the relative accuracy was reliably higher when the EOL judgments were correlated with a binary criterion (i.e., if an item was recalled or not on a test), compared with a trials-to-learn criterion (i.e., how many study and test trials were needed to recall an item). In addition, Experiments 2 and 3 indicate other factors to be non-influential for EOL accuracy, such as the task used to measure the EOL judgments, and whether items were judged sequentially (i.e., one item at a time in isolation from the other items) or simultaneously (i.e., each item was judged while having access to all other items). To conclude, EOL judgments can be highly accurate (G = .74) and may thus be of strategic importance for learning. Further avenues for research are discussed.