QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Fundamentals of Quantitative Research Template



Experimental or Quasi-Experimental Study

In the present experiments, authors use learners' propensity to allocate time to their region of proximal learning as a tool to explore the degree to which habitual responding contributes to study-time allocation. To understand the current approach, authors first introduce a general framework of study-time allocation that also emphasizes the influential role of factors other than monitoring item difficulty. According to the ABR framework, both agenda-based and habitual processes mutually influence learners' study-time allocation (for a detailed review, see Dunlosky & Ariel, 2011). Concerning agenda-based processes, Ariel, Dunlosky, and Bailey (2009) proposed that learners develop a study agenda—or simple plan—to allocate time across items. It is important to note that agenda-based processes are compatible with the RPL theory, because learners can develop an agenda to choose the easiest unlearned items first for study. 2

Authors originally named this framework “agenda-based regulation” to emphasize that learners do construct and execute agendas when allocating study time (Ariel et al, 2009), because learner's goal-oriented behavior has not been emphasized in previous theories of study-time allocation (Dunlosky & Thiede, 2004). Nevertheless, the ABR framework proposes that both agenda-based (agenda construction and execution) and habitual processes can jointly influence learners' choices. Habitual responding refers to when the stimulus environment in conjunction with people's a priori experiences triggers a prepotent response, such as when a learner mindlessly chooses to study items in a habitual reading order rather than prioritizing items in a manner to meet a learning goal.

Methodology

Fifty students from Kent State University participated for course credit in introductory psychology. A 3 (Item Difficulty: easy, moderately difficult, difficult) × 2 (Item Order: easy on the left [EMD] vs. difficult on the left [DME]) × 2 (Time Allowed: 5 s vs. unlimited) mixed factorial design used with item difficulty and time allowed as within-subject factors. Participants randomly assigned to either the EMD group (n = 23) or the DME group (n = 26).

Across experiments authors also collected demographic information pertaining to participants' proficiency with the Spanish language. Participants answered the following questions: (a) Are you a native English speaker? (b) Can you speak Spanish fluently? (c) Have you ever taken a Spanish class? And (d) how many Spanish classes have you taken? The majority of participants were native English speakers (89%). Only nine subjects responded that they could speak Spanish fluently (4%). Sixty-nine percent of participants reported taking at least one Spanish class. On average, participants reported taking at least two Spanish classes. Most important, given that participants randomly assigned to groups, the Spanish proficiency reported by participants did not influence the outcomes in any of the experiments and would not contribute to main effects or interactions; also, excluding participants who reported proficiency from the analyses did not influence the outcomes or conclusions. Thus, all analyses reported include all participants and authors do not discuss Spanish proficiency further.

Materials

Ninety-six English-Spanish vocabulary pairs adapted from Metcalfe (2002) for use in this experiment. The vocabulary pairs consisted of 32 easy pairs (for ...