Xiping Liu

When collaborative learning facilitates learning, remains a central question in educational research. Grounded in cognitive load theory, this study examined whether the effectiveness of collaborative, relative to individual, learning from worked-examples is jointly moderated by learners’ experimentally induced task-specific prior knowledge and task complexity. A 2 (task-specific prior knowledge: low vs. high) × 2 (task complexity: low vs. high) × 2 (learning condition: individual vs. collaborative) mixed design was employed, with task complexity as a within-subjects factor. A total of 134 fifth-grade students participated in the study. They studied mathematical worked-examples of varying complexity, either individually or collaboratively, and then completed near-transfer and far-transfer tests as well as cognitive load ratings. Results showed a significant three-way interaction among task-specific prior knowledge, task complexity, and learning condition for near-transfer, indicating that the effect of learning condition depended jointly on learners’ task-specific prior knowledge and task complexity. Specifically, under high task complexity, collaborative learning outperformed individual learning among learners with high task-specific prior knowledge, whereas no stable collaborative advantage was found for learners with low task-specific prior knowledge. For far-transfer, the main effects of task-specific prior knowledge and task complexity were significant, whereas the main effect of learning condition and all interaction effects did not reach statistical significance. Thus, collaborative learning did not show a stable advantage in far-transfer tasks. The cognitive load results provided supportive evidence for understanding the differences in transfer performance: students in the collaborative learning condition reported lower subjective cognitive load than those in the individual learning condition, and high complexity tasks elicited higher cognitive load than low complexity tasks. Overall, the findings suggest that the effectiveness of collaboration in learning from worked-examples is conditional rather than universal. Its benefits depend on the fit between task complexity and learners’ task-specific prior knowledge. The study provides empirical evidence on the boundary conditions of collaborative learning in elementary mathematics instruction through worked examples and contributes to a better understanding of when collaborative learning is most effective.

Although associative interference has traditionally been attributed to retrieval competition, emerging evidence suggests that interference may also arise from encoding-based representational processes. The present study examined whether retroactive interference (RI) and proactive interference (PI) can occur in the absence of explicit retrieval competition and whether they reflect distinct underlying mechanisms. Participants studied two lists of word–picture pairs in an AB/AC associative learning paradigm, followed by a non-competitive two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) associative recognition test and a source memory task. Across both frequentist and Bayesian analyses, recognition accuracy revealed a significant RI effect—lower accuracy for earlier A-B pairs relative to non-overlapping controls—whereas PI manifested as longer reaction times (RTs) for later A-C pairs, despite comparable accuracy. Source judgments showed faster correct responses for overlapping than for non-overlapping pairs, suggesting that cue overlap facilitated more fluent retrieval rather than confusion. These findings indicate that interference can emerge independently of retrieval competition and that RI and PI are supported by dissociable mechanisms: RI reflects encoding-related reorganization that weakens earlier associations, whereas PI reflects increased retrieval effort following differentiation of overlapping traces. Together, the results support a process-interaction framework in which encoding-based reactivation and reorganization shape later retrieval dynamics, demonstrating that associative interference arises from the interplay between encoding and retrieval processes rather than retrieval competition alone.

This study investigated how encoding strength and consolidation shape proactive interference (PI) in associative memory. Using a Modified Modified Free Recall (MMFR) paradigm, participants studied overlapping (A-B, A-C) and non-overlapping (E-F, G-H) pairs. The encoding strength of List 1 was manipulated (one vs. three study repetitions), while List 2 was held constant. Cued recall was tested immediately and after a 24-h delay. Results showed that increasing List 1’s encoding strength enhanced overall recall for both overlapping and non-overlapping pairs, indicating more effective learning, but did not alter the magnitude of PI. Instead, PI was strongly modulated by retention interval. At immediate test, robust PI emerged across conditions, reflecting cue-based retrieval competition. After a 24-h delay, PI was reduced or absent when List 1 was weakly encoded but persisted in attenuated form when List 1 was strongly encoded, suggesting differential consolidation trajectories for overlapping and non-overlapping associations. Co-retrieval analyses further revealed reliable associative dependency between B and C across all conditions, consistent with representational linkages that promote cooperative retrieval. These findings highlight the dual influence of cue overlap: at the representational level, overlapping pairs form integrated structures that foster co-retrieval, whereas at the retrieval-processing level, cue overload induces competition and PI. Taken together, the results indicate that although initial encoding strength enhances overall recall of List 2, the persistence of proactive interference is influenced by consolidation processes.

Value-directed remembering involves two key mechanisms: automatic processing and strategic processing. Automatic processing relies on the brain’s reward system and is associated with midbrain dopaminergic pathways and medial temporal-lobe activity. Strategic processing, in contrast, involves conscious, effortful encoding strategies and engages semantic-processing regions and executive control systems. This article reviews the developmental trajectory of value-directed remembering from childhood to old age through the lens of a dual-process model. Children and adolescents primarily rely on automatic processing; adults are capable of flexibly switching between the two processes; older adults tend to rely more on strategic processing. These findings reflect the dynamic developmental changes in the brain’s reward and executive-control systems. Future research should further investigate the synergistic interplay between dual-processing mechanisms, the moderating role of cultural contexts, and the efficacy of intervention strategies to deepen our understanding of the developmental trajectory of value-directed memory.

This study examined how the relative encoding strength of pre-existing associations influences proactive interference (PI), and whether memory consolidation modulates this effect over time. Using a Modified Modified Free Recall (MMFR) paradigm, participants studied overlapping (A–B, A–C) and non-overlapping paired associates(E-F, G-H). The encoding strength of List 1 was manipulated (one vs. three study repetitions), while List 2 was held constant. Recall was tested immediately and after a 24-hour delay.Results showed that PI was strongest when both lists were studied once, consistent with maximal cue-based competition. When List 1 was studied three times, PI was attenuated, suggesting reduced retrieval ambiguity. After a 24-hour delay, PI was eliminated in the equal-strength condition but persisted slightly in the strong List 1 condition. Co-retrieval analyses revealed consistent associative dependency between B and C across all conditions, indicating robust integration between overlapping traces.These findings demonstrate that retrieval competition in PI is modulated by both encoding strength and consolidation. While stronger encoding can reduce immediate competition, it may also prolong interference. The results underscore a dual-process framework in which cue overlap leads to both interference and cooperative retrieval, depending on the balance between differentiation and integration mechanisms.

Interference between similar associations poses a core challenge for episodic memory. While retrieval-based accounts have dominated past theories, it remains unclear whether retroactive interference (RI) and proactive interference (PI) can emerge independently of retrieval competition. To address this, we employed a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) associative recognition task that minimized retrieval competition by using same-list distractors. Participants studied overlapping (A–B, A–C) and non-overlapping (E–F, G–H) associations, followed by associative recognition and source memory judgments. Results revealed an asymmetric interference pattern: RI impaired recognition accuracy without affecting response times, suggesting degraded recollection due to representational suppression. In contrast, PI was reflected in longer response times without accuracy loss, consistent with increased retrieval demands stemming from encoding-related differentiation. Source judgments showed no integration-induced cost and even faster RTs for overlapping pairs, further supporting the operation of pattern separation during A–C encoding. These findings highlight the critical role of encoding—rather than retrieval alone—in shaping interference. RI and PI reflect distinct processes: suppression-driven weakening of prior traces versus complexity-induced retrieval delays, respectively. Our results challenge retrieval-centric models and underscore the need for encoding-focused frameworks in memory interference research. Future work should examine how encoding strength, contextual differentiation, and individual variability modulate interference effects across memory tasks.

Children acquire much of their knowledge through trusting others’ testimony, particularly that of teachers. They not only tend to trust their teachers but also imitate behaviors that teachers reward. However, it remains unclear if they show selective trust in those who provide such rewards. This study, therefore, examined how teachers’ rewards to other children and the types of these rewards influence the selective trust of preschoolers. In Study 1, 162 preschoolers from junior, middle, and senior classes watched videos of a teacher giving verbal and material rewards, while another provided neutral feedback. Then, children chose which teacher to trust in a novel object-naming task. The results showed that all preschoolers preferred to trust teachers who offered rewards compared to those who did not. Moreover, junior-class children displayed the highest level of selective trust among the preschoolers. In Study 2, 176 preschoolers judged which teacher to trust, one offering material rewards and the other verbal praise. The results showed senior-class girls preferred teachers with material rewards more than senior-class boys and middle-class girls. These findings indicate that preschoolers can assess teachers’ trustworthiness based on rewards and are more sensitive to material rewards than to verbal praise when accepting information from teachers.

When preparing for entrance exams, learners often face limited study time and need to allocate it by making trade-offs among items with varying combinations of scores and test likelihoods. This study explored how learners allocate study time under time constraints by establishing a trade-off situation with three types of items: low score-high test likelihood, high score-low likelihood, and medium score-medium likelihood. The learners needed to allocate study time to the items. Experiment 1 found that participants allocated the most study time to medium score-medium likelihood items rather than to those with the highest scores or likelihood. They also allocated equal time to low score-high likelihood and high score-low likelihood items despite their differing expected scores. It suggests that under short time constraints, learners did not rely solely on expected scores to allocate study time. In actual learning processes, the influence of difficulty cannot be overlooked. Therefore, Experiment 2 examined whether item difficulty affected the allocation strategy. Results indicated that even with varying difficulty levels, learners did not base their decisions entirely on expected scores. To rule out the possibility that the 5-second time constraint was too short to allocate study time based on expected utility, Experiment 3 extended the study time but found that learners still did not allocate time according to expected utility under longer time constraints. It suggests that learners consider both scores and test likelihoods; however, their allocation process is not completely based on the expected scores. These findings contradict the expected utility theory.