You are currently browsing Corinna’s articles.

While there were a lot of things I’ve learnt in this module, I have two more general points:


1. I have taken the Evidence-Based Educational Method last semester. Hence, I have been taught that the current common educational practices and beliefs are not always supported by and sometimes even contradicted by scientific evidence. However, after reading and hearing more about other educational methods that are currently being practiced, in particular in Finland, I have marginally more hope that more students can experience higher quality education in the UK and other countries.


2. After reading so many blogs and comments along with attending some talks, I have found that knowing what is the best educational theories and methods to be implemented is not always clear as there are contradicting evidence. However, after the talk of validity of some of the research used in the blogs (a problem that exist not only in blogs) in our last class on Monday, 16th April 2012, I am guessing that some of the contradictions may come from the lack of validity in some research. Hence, there may be more of a need to focus on the validity of research used to support implementations.


Overall, I am glad that this module gave me the opportunity to observe more theories and opinions. I feel that knowing the contradictions is important just in case those contradictions are truer. So, thank you very much to Jesse Martin, Daniel Spencer and everyone enrolled in this module and everyone who allowed this module to happen!

It is best that you have both a good amount of sleep and a good amount of food for more lasting a concentration span and greater recall (Philibert, 2005; Pilcher & Walters, 1997; Wesnes, Pincock, Richardson, Helm & Hails, 2003). However, if you have that dilemma, which of the two are you better off choosing if you are not revising about food?

Research has found that hungry people give greater attention to food-related items than items that are not (Morris & Dolan, 2001). Thus, suggesting that hungry people concentrate better on food-related materials but are more distractible away from materials that are not food-related, making it advisable to choose to eat for that reason (Piech, Pastorino  & Zald, 2010). Sugary drinks do not counteract the effects that lack of food have on memory and concentration either (Wesnes et al., 2003).

On the other hand, not only does sleep deprivation negatively impact performance during wakefulness (Philibert, 2005; Pilcher & Walters, 1997), but during sleep, memories of declarative, procedural and emotional information are also improved in those who are not elderly or are psychiatric patients (Born, Rasch & Gais, 2006; Diekelmann, Wilhelm & Born, 2009; Ficca, Axelsson, Mollicone, Muto & Vitiello, 2010). Therefore, the brain does not stop working during sleep (Diekelmann, Wilhelm & Born, 2009; McClelland McNaughton & O’Reilly, 1995). However, memory-enhancing effects has also been argued for doing any task other than the learning task at hand (Vincent, 2009). Thus, any breaks, including cooking and eating, can help you. Nevertheless, it has been found that recall is greater after sleeping than after the same amount of time being awake, though this has been debated (Ellenbogen, Payne & Stickgold, 2006; Gais, Lucas & Born, 2006).

In conclusion, choosing to sleep appears to be the more advisable option for a lot of people. Although, being hungry can also decrease concentration span and the likelihood of recall. Which would you choose?

Huang, Li, Wang and Chang (2007) developed a game called the Idea Storming Cube to fill a gap created by the traditional greater focus on convergent thinking for problem solving. This was done by encouraging a different thinking style, divergent thinking, which is associated with the production of creative ideas, but is not creative thinking to be exact (Huang, Li, Wang & Chang (2007); Kuhn & Holling, 2009; Runco, 2008). Both convergent and divergent thinking processes are arguably necessary for creative problem solving due to the different and useful functions each style has, for example, changing the perspectives taken for divergent thinking and spotting patterns for convergent thinking (Ashton-James & Chartrand, 2009). Likewise, different areas of the brain were found to activate during tasks that were associated with the use of either convergent or divergent thinking (Razoumnikova, 2000). The exploration of numerous of different ideas as possible solutions is the use of divergent thinking, while convergent thinking is a style that seeks out for a single possible answer (Kuhn & Holling, 2009). Hence, Huang, Li, Wang and Chang’s (2007) aim to encourage more divergent thinking is justified.

To win the game, players have to create the most cards with valid ideas, which is in concordance with the-more-the-better part of existing divergent thinking measurements (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011). The blank cards are filled in according to a writing topic and players have to share filled cards and understanding each other’s ideas. The interactions are done through the use of technology.

I had a discussion with someone about the terms ‘special needs’ and ‘additional needs’, which I hope to bring here.

The needs described by these terms typically involve additional educational help, such as the use of extra computer programs (Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000) and extra support from professionals (Lightfoot, Wright & Sloper, 1999). However, for at least some of these disabilities, some have argued that people who require these needs have not lost anything that has to be replaced, but instead function in ways that are different and only seem lacking in societies that naturally do not cater for them (Rutter, 1980; Sacks, 1989; Shakespeare, 2006). Meanwhile, the term ‘additional needs’ may discourage this mind-set as, with reference to the Oxford Dictionaries, saying that someone has ‘additional needs’ may suggest that they simply need more help than what has already been offered. Hence, implying that the people with these needs have deficits to address.

On the other hand, there have been reports from previous literature on the human tendency to reject those who are different from themselves (Phelan, Link & Dovidio, 2008; Abrams, Rutland, Cameron & Marques, 2003). In concordance, Akrami, Ekehammar, Claesson and Sonnander (2006) concluded that individuals with disabilities experience a level of negative attitude from everyone. What’s more, the Oxford Dictionaries described the meaning of ‘special‘ using the word “different”. Hence, the use of the term ‘special needs’ may encourage discrimination, while the use of ‘additional needs’ may lessen discrimination by not highlighting that these individuals function differently.

In conclusion, both terms could potentially promote discrimination towards the individuals who could do with these needs or directly insult them. What do you think?

Over the past 5 weeks, I have been persuaded of the increasing magnitude of change the standard curriculums in the UK could do with. I will introduce a few methods I currently think the educational system could do with standardising as well as direct you to the blogs that have triggered or are related to these conclusions of mine.


Effective management of classroom behaviours can allow less time and effort to be spent on reprimanding and could lead to more on-task behaviours and teaching opportunities (Watkin & Slocum, 2004). For effective behaviour management, both warm student-teacher relationships along with the use of frequent praises and, if necessary, other rewards may have to be established and implemented (Jones, Daley, Hutchings, Bywater & Eames, 2007; Reid & Webster-Stratton, 2001; Webster-Stratton, 2004).

(Carys’ blogs)


Especially for primary schools, more focus than is offered in the current reality needs to be shifted towards teaching skills, such as reading, writing, speaking, mathematics and computer skills, which are necessary foundations for various of other lessons (Rose, 2009). Without the fundamental skills needed to understand other lessons, learning can become harder and the difficulties can stack until there is overall academic failure (Binder, 1996). Hence, fundamental skills have to be learnt before moving on otherwise chances of learning in subsequent lessons can be reduced.

(Declan’s blog)


As well as a final grade, some way of tracking the progress of students throughout a course can be advantageous to learning, because the knowledge of personal progresses alone can be intrinsically motivating enough for some to improve their performance (Binder, 1996). Hence, the student’s own progress should be made clear and accessible. This could be done via charting for instance weekly (Shinn, 2002) or even daily (Lindsley, 1992) scores.

(Chiron’s blog)

All in all, what is it I would like to change?

There are multiple of links here that were directed towards science papers at the time of pasting. What I would like is for the education sector to improve their receptivity for scientific evidence. If more scientific evidence is taken into consideration, less of the trial and error, the ‘let’s hope whatever I try this time will work’ approach in providing education will exist (Snider, 2006). Instead, the education sector should aim to provide education that have actually been empirically validated and change itself more quickly and hopefully for the better (Snider, 2006).

Have you been given an exam question before asking you to recommend an intervention, an improvement, etc. to fictional people who were basically strangers? Well, those might be to your benefit.

Using several different tasks, Polman and Emich (2011) found greater levels of creativity and problem solving success resulting from asking participants to generate ideas for individuals who were not close to them rather than for individuals who were. What’s more, the lowest averages came from the group asked to complete the tasks for themselves. Similar effects may also be achieved by creating tasks that involve decision-making for future selves rather than the current selves (Polman and Emich, 2011; Pronin, Olivola & Kennedy, 2008), as people see their future selves as if they are another person (Pronin & Ross, 2006). Hence, ideas dedicated to distant others, including future selves, are better than ideas dedicated to those who are close to the individual, in particular if the individual is their current selves. This could mean that tasks that do not involve creating or making decisions for distant others produce less representative results of an individual’s true creative and problem solving skills.

Polman and Emich (2011) speculated that these results may partly be due to a tendency to expect more guilt if the wrong decision was made for another person than if it was made for one’s self. So to avoid this greater amount of guilt, better decisions and less risks were suggested to be made. However, findings studying this potential tendency were mixed as there were situations where individuals are more likely encourage others to take more risk than they, themselves, would (Beisswanger, Stone & Hupp & Allgaier, 2003). Nevertheless, those risk-taking decisions were still different from those made for one’s self. Moreover, brain scans have revealed that the brain system that has been theorised to bias people towards decisions to opt for more immediate rewards, rather than delayed but greater rewards, is less active during decision making for strangers and future selves (Albrecht, Volz, Sutter, Laibson & Cramon, 2010). Hence, people can think for strangers and future selves with less influence from this bias.

However, decisions made for others can still be influence by the same bias that can obscure potential errors of decisions made by the self (Jonas, Schulz-Hardt & Frey, 2005). Jonas, Schulz-Hardt & Frey (2005) found that recommendations made for others used a more balanced perceptive than when it was a decision made for others. This was due to the tendency during decision-making tasks to avoid conflicting information (Klayman & Ha, 1987). Hence, tasks asking people to make the decision for others are better than task completed for one’s self, but creating tasks that ask people to make recommendations for others may be even better.

In conclusion, simply asking people to be creative and/or solve problems may not be enough! With the addition of some words to a task description, people can be prompted to show their truer potential and those few words could be something along the lines of ‘what would you recommend for a stranger?’

There have been concerns mentioned about how teacher expectations may influence the quality of education students receive and in turn affect their performance (Smith et al., 1998). This would be the self-fulfilling prophecy in action (Smith et al., 1998) to which Synder (1977) has described the following process:

Attribution/prediction by others

Treated differently by others

Given more opportunity to confirm attribution/prediction by others

Behaviour often matched attribution/prediction

However, Smith et al. (1998) concluded that social perceptions are typically accurate. Likewise, Jussim and Harber (2005) discerned that teacher evaluations correlate with actual academic performances because teachers are usually accurate judges of student abilities. Though this evidence could be used to argue that the correlations were from teachers inadvertently confirming the evaluations by treating individuals differently, Jussim and Harber (2005) explained that the effects of self-fulfilling prophecies were so small that the accuracy of teacher predictions is due to the abilities of teachers to predict.

Nonetheless, a group of prisoners who had attended Farrell’s (1986) class was taught to pass an undergraduate course with a C or a higher accreditation. This was despite the low expectations from other staff members and a statement that only half had at least high school-equivalent qualifications (Farrell, 1986). The results were allegedly achieved by providing high expectations (Farrell, 1986). Farrell (1986) also described another way in how teacher expectations can affect performances:

Attribution/prediction by others

Treated differently by others

Believe attribution/prediction

Behaviour affected by self-image

Behaviour often matched attribution/prediction

It has to be mentioned though that Farrell (1986) had admitted that the study was an unplanned experiment without a control group. Still, Farrell’s (1986) stressed the need to repeatedly convey these positive evaluations, which has been proven by planned studies with control groups to affect intrinsic motivation or performance (Koestner, Zuckerman & Olsson, 1990; Meddock, Parsons & Hill, 1971). Mumm and Multu (2011) even found this effect of increased intrinsic motivation even when it was a computer that instigated the praise. However, not all types of praises have positive effects on motivation and performance, e.g. praises for intelligence rather than effort (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). By combining these conclusions the following model is made (Koestner et al., 1990; Meddock et al., 1971; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Mumm & Multu, 2011):

Appropriate praise from others

Increased intrinsic motivation

Improved performance

Similarly, destructive criticism can hinder performance by affecting motivation (Baron, 1988):

Destructive criticism from others

Reduced confidence

Reduced motivation

Hindered performance

The conclusion I draw from these findings that are unless the evaluations are conveyed, evaluations are unlikely to make a large impact on performance. What do you think?


Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.199

Farrell, C. C. (1986). Pygmalion in the prison classroom. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 30, 151-162. doi:10.1177/0306624X8603000208

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D., (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3

Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Olsson, J. (1990). Attributional style, comparison focus of praise, and intrinsic motivation. Journal Of Research In Personality, 24, 87-100. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(90)90008-T

Meddock, T. D., Parsons, J. A., & Hill, K. T. (1971). Effects of an adult’s presence and praise on young children’s performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 12, 197-211. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(71)90004-X

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52. Retrieved from

Mumm, J., & Multu, B. (2011). Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,1643-1650. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.002

Smith, A. E., Jussim, L., Eccles, J., VanNoy, M., Madon S., & Palumbo, P. (1998). Self-fulfilling prophecies, perceptual biases, and accuracy at the individual and group levels. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 530-561. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1363

Synder, M. (1977). When belief creates reality the self-fulfilling impact of first impressions on social interaction. In A. Pines, & C. Maslac (Eds.), Experiencing Social Psychology (pp. 96-107). New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.

Corporations and business people can potentially exert influence on government decisions through lobbying, one official way, (Bouwen, 2002) and other methods. In the UK, suspicions appeared to be hinted towards some individuals, temporarily hired by the government before returning to work for corporations, playing a part in approving projects that were allegedly not cost-effective for the taxpayers, but beneficial to the corporations involved, in a BBC One documentary. The transfer of ideas might also occur over the dinners government workers and business people may have together. These examples may be negative. However, if these negative claims were true, these may show the extent of influence corporations can have.

Looking at this possible amount of influence and the lack of influence of research findings concerning effective educational practices may have (Snider, 2006), could corporations create further positive impacts on education? Some of the projects approved were for schools (Roy, 2008) and some corporations look to adopt social initiatives that may improve societies or the environment (Kolk & Tulder, 2010).

Nonetheless, corporations and business people may, too, need convincing that your favourite educational practices really are effective. Teaching people and having them believe and do as you say may not be easy and could even lead to people pursuing the opposite (Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young & Potts, 2007). A combination of factors has to be considered in presenting information (Latimer, Salovey & Rothman, 2007). Appealing to individual values is one recommended way to persuasively present information in areas such as why people should get involved in volunteering (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Miene, & Haugen, 1994), which corporations or business people might have to do depending on the route taken.

Moreover, for social initiatives to be perceived positively at large, the values of the initiative and corporation have to be related (Berker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). Though, a careful amount of relevance has to be reached, otherwise, there may be confusion if the amount is too low or blame directed at the corporation for previous inaction if the amount of relevance is too high (Berker-Olsen et al., 2006). Still, the right businesses have to be appealed to for benefits on both sides. However, this research concerns corporations as a whole (Berker-Olsen et al., 2006). Hence, business people may still be safe to bring up some interesting research findings in informal chitchats with politicians. “Speaking as a parent…”

Thus, there may be hope for brighter futures for the coming generations and educational standards. Even in a lukewarm environment for scientific evidence, the education sector (Snider, 2006)! Teaching corporations and business people the effective educational practices may be one way to go for now.

References apart from what has been linked

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001

Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9, 365-390.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Miene, P. K., & Haugen, J. A. (1994). Matching messages to motives in persuasion: A functional approach to promoting volunteerism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1129-1149. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01548.x

Kolk, A., & van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review, 19, 119-125. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.12.003

Latimer, A. E., Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. J. (2007). The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost? Journal of Health Communication, 12, 645-649. doi:10.1080/10810730701619695

Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotion health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219-240. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x

Roy, E. (2008). The private finance initiative & public private partnerships. Retrieved,

Snider, V. (2006). The myth of good teachers. In Myths and misconceptions about teaching: What really happens in the classroom (pp. 85-105). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Note: Information about the series is from watching the anime adaptation directed by Ōnuma (2010), apart from what is linked.

Literally translated to ‘Idiots, Tests and Summoned Beasts’, this is a lighthearted series with implausibly large nosebleeds, food bad enough to floor people and so forth. Still, it introduced another educational system.

The test scores translate to both health and attack points for the students’ summoned beasts, usually used for tournaments and fights. To potentially recharge health/attack points, students are allowed to answer as many test papers as possible within a time limit. Hence, frequency is measured with unlimited response opportunities, arguably a more comprehensive measure of performance than accuracy-only methods with a set number of response opportunities (Binder, 1996). Following the logic of the argument, students who have achieved 100% on three papers have performed better than students who have achieved 100% on one paper within the same time. Hence, this testing procedure can effectively identify different levels of abilities (Binder, 1996).

However, with the health/attack points directly linked to test scores, overt peer comparisons and competitions were common, which may encourage the less effective performance goals for learning (Ames, 1992; Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006). This is the goal to surpass others of a certain level, where the criterion of consuming little effort to succeed is common (Ames, 1992). Whereas, mastery goals focus on bettering one’s self, leading more likely to effortful involvement (Ames, 1992). Research has linked mastery rather than performance goals to higher quality and longer term immersion with learning (Ames, 1992). Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2002), nevertheless, concluded that there are two types of performance goals and the competitive type is beneficial, while the avoidance type is not. Still, this system may not benefit everyone.

I also disagree with how this fictional educational system treats students from different class levels. The facility quality positively correlates with class level, e.g. the lowest level class gets broken or breaking furniture. This could link self-worth to test scores, which can negatively impact the performances of even students associated with positive stereotypes (Lawrence & Crocker, 2009). Hence, even the students who got plasma televisions in their classrooms. This reference of self-worth from intelligence can also distress other areas of life, including love (Lemay & Clark, 2008). The larger the influence of performance on self-worth, the greater the relationship dissatisfaction is and the more praise is doubted (Lemay & Clark, 2008). Meanwhile, increasing the effects of praise can a part of treatment plans as it is a preferable reinforcer (Brown, 1971). Thus, this facility quality to level relationship can hinder performance and the effects of praise.

In summary, the testing procedure is effective, but the health/attack points to test scores and facility quality to level relationships could potentially undermine performance. Moreover, other areas of life could be negatively affected by the possible mentalities induced by the system. Hence, I do not recommend the whole system as it is, only the testing procedure.


Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.84.3.261

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163-197.

Brown, R. A. (1971). Interaction effects of social and tangible reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 12, 289-303. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(71)90026-9

Lawrence, J. S., & Crocker, J. (2009). Academic contingencies of self-worth impair positively- and negatively-stereotyped students’ performance in performance-goal settings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 868–874. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.002

Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008). ‘‘You’re Just Saying That.” Contingencies of self-worth, suspicion, and authenticity in the interpersonal affirmation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1376-1382. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.001

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.

Ōnuma, S. (Director). (2010). Baka to Test to Shōkanjū [Motion picture]. Japan: Silver Link.

Is what is easy to learn, easy to forget or is what is harder to learn, harder to remember (Koriat, 2008)? Addressing this question is important in determining what constitutes as effective tasks. Hence, I ask here, what fosters the best retention, an easy or hard task?

The easy learn, easy forget argument may exist due to greater mental processing required for harder materials. Rhodes and Anastasi (2000) have shown that the greater the effort spent on the task, using higher levels of processing techniques, the greater the recall. However, in using completion time as an indication of task difficulty, Koriat (2008) found that with greater task difficulty, the less likely items are recalled. Instead, Koriat (2008) found that there was often a decreased sense of learning with the decreased difficulty in tasks. Hence, there may be a general illusion that learning does not occur during certain easy tasks when, in fact, learning is possible.

Koriat (2008) also drew attention a possible aspect of simpler tasks that can increase both completion rate and retention, which is familiarity. Familiarity, which can be the phenomenon of an item reminding the individual of another item (Mecklinger, 2000), can be an important factor in verbal learning (Noble, 1953). Likewise, Gathercole (1995) found that non-words that appear like more real words are more accurately reproduced.

In argument for difficulty, Bjork (1988) concluded that the retrieval tasks have to be more difficult to promote greater retention in subsequent retrieve attempts. Nevertheless, these difficult retrieval tasks can be implemented alongside relatively easy learning tasks.

Still, there is a risk in having tasks being both too easy and too hard, and the risk is demotivation (Watkin & Slocum, 2004). As a result, tasks need to be tuned to contain the right degree of challenge for each individual student (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). This is the basis of the Region of Proximal Learning framework, which specified that materials should be easy but not yet mastered by the learner (Metcalfe, 2011). This focus on progressing through materials with easy to learn steps has been argued to greater rates and enjoyability in learning compared to materials that are too difficult (Metcalfe, 2011; Watkin & Slocum, 2004). The Desirable Difficulty perspective, which encourages the use of difficult tasks, also specified that the difficulty has to be desirable (Metcalfe, 2011).

In conclusion, the difficulty of learning tasks has to be moderated in the challenge posed to individual students. While easy to learn materials are more easily remembered, tasks have to be on materials the learner has yet to master and the retrieval tasks have to be more difficult.



Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In: M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory II (pp. 396-401). London: Wiley.

Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term knowledge? It all depends on the nonwords. Memory & Cognition, 23, 83-94. doi:10.3758/BF03210559

Koriat, A. (2008). Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 416-428. doi:10.3758/MC.36.2.416

Mecklinger, A. (2000). Interfacing mind and brain: A neurocognitive model of recognition memory. Psychophysiology, 37, 565-582.

Metcalfe, J. (2011). Desirable difficulties and studying in the region of proximal learning. In: A. S. Benjamin (Eds.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 259-276). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Noble, C. E. (1953). The meaning-familiarity relationship. Psychological Review, 60, 89-98.

Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2000). The effects of a levels-of-processing manipulation on false recall. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 158-162.

Watkins, C. L., & Slocum, T. A. (2004). The components of Direct Instruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 75-110.