Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36072097›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2022

Second Chances in Learning: Does a Resit Prospect Lower Study-Time Investments on a First Test?

Rob Nijenkamp, Mark R Nieuwenstein, Ritske de Jong, Monicque M Lorist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rob NijenkampDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, NL.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8321-1134
Mark R NieuwensteinDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, NL.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9602-3463
Ritske de JongDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, NL.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9869-3703
Monicque M LoristDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, NL.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-093X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the prospect of a resit opportunity lowers hypothetical study-time investments for a first exam, as compared to a single-chance exam (i.e., the resit effect). The present paper describes a first experiment in which we aimed to generalize this effect from hypothetical study-time investments to a learning task allowing for the optimization of actual study-time investments while participants studied pairs of pseudowords for a subsequent multiple-choice test, given either a single chance or two chances to pass. Against our expectations, the results of the experiment showed no resit effect for the amount of actual time participants spent studying the materials in the experimental learning task. To better allow for the optimization of study-time investments, the learning task was adapted for a second experiment to include an indication of passing probability. These results, however, also did not show a resit effect. A third experiment addressed whether it was the investment of actual time that led to this absence of a resit effect with the learning task. The results suggested, however, that it was most likely the lack of a priori deliberation that caused this absence of the effect. Taken together with findings from a fourth questionnaire study showing that students seem to take a resit prospect into account by indicating they would have studied more for an exam if the option to resit would not have been available, these findings lead us to argue that a resit prospect may primarily affect advance study-time allocation decisions.

Indexed as

advance study-time planningexam takinglearningresit examsstudy-time allocation

Identifiers

PMID36072097
PMCPMC9400702

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.