On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit.

Interleaving exemplars of to-be-learned categories-rather than blocking exemplars by category-typically enhances inductive learning. Learners, however, tend to believe the opposite, even after their own performance has benefited from interleaving. In Experiments 1 and 2, the authors examined the influence of 2 factors that they hypothesized contribute to the illusion that blocking enhances inductive learning: Namely, that (a) blocking creates a sense of fluent extraction during study of the features defining a given category, and (b) learners come to the experimental task with a pre-existing belief that blocking instruction by topic is superior to intermixing topics. In Experiments 3-5, the authors attempted to uproot learners' belief in the superiority of blocking through experience-based and theory-based debiasing techniques by (a) providing detailed theory-based information as to why blocking seems better, but is not, and (b) explicitly drawing attention to the link between study schedule and subsequent performance, both of which had only modest effects. Only when they disambiguated test performance on the 2 schedules by separating them (Experiment 6) did the combination of experience- and theory-based debiasing lead a majority of learners to appreciate interleaving. Overall, the results indicate that 3 influences combine to make altering learners' misconceptions difficult: the sense of fluency that can accompany nonoptimal modes of instruction; pre-existing beliefs learners bring to new tasks; and the willingness, even eagerness, to believe that 1 is unique as a learner-that what enhances others' learning differs from what enhances one's own learning. (PsycINFO Database Record