Re-reading has been shown to have a minimal benefit on text comprehension, in comparison to reading only once or other types of study techniques (e.g., testing; self-explanation). In two experiments we examined the effect of re-reading on mind wandering. Participants read two texts, during which they responded to intermittent mind wandering probes. One text was read once and the other twice. Consistent with previous findings, there was no effect of re-reading on comprehension even though participants reported feeling more competent when they re-read the text. Critically, participants mind wandered more while re-reading. Furthermore, the effect of re-reading on mind wandering was specific to intentional forms of mind wandering rather than unintentional. The implications of these results for understanding mind wandering and the limited effectiveness of re-reading as a mnemonic are discussed.
BallB. H., KleinK. N., & BrewerG. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 336–348.
2.
BarrN., PennycookG., StolzJ. A., & FugelsangJ. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029
3.
BromageB. K., & MayerR. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 271–278. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.271
4.
BrownJ. A., FishcoV. V., & HannaG. (1993). Nelson-Denny reading test: Manual for scoring and interpretation, forms G & H. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
5.
CallenderA. A., & McDanielM. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001
6.
ChiM. T. H. (2009). Active?–constructive–interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
7.
CrumpM. J., McDonnellJ. V., & GureckisT. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS one, 8, e57410. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
8.
DunloskyJ., & ThiedeK. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00051-6
9.
DunloskyJ., RawsonK. A., MarshE. J., NathanM. J., & WillinghamD. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266
10.
FarleyJ., RiskoE. F., & KingstoneA. (2013). Everyday attention and lecture retention: The effects of time, fidgeting, and mind wandering. Frontiers in psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00619
11.
FengS., D'MelloS., & GraesserA. (2013). Mindwandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 586–592. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0367-y
12.
FriedmanN. P., & MiyakeA. (2000). Differential roles for visuospatial and verbal working memory in situation model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 61–83. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.61
13.
GraesserA. C., & PersonN. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137. doi: 10.3102/00028312031001104
14.
HalpernD. F., MillisK., GraesserA., ButlerH., ForsythC., & CaiZ. (2012). Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006
15.
HuangM. H., & HauserR. M. (1998). Trends in Black-White test score differentials: II The WORDSUM vocabulary test. In NeisserU. (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures (pp. 303–332). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
KarpickeJ. D., ButlerA. C., & RoedigerH. L.III (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?Memory, 17, 471–479. doi: 10.1080/09658210802647009
KoriatA. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In ZelazoP. D., MoscovitchM., & ThompsonE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KrugD., DavisB., & GloverJ. A. (1990). Massed versus distributed repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall?Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 366–371. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.366
20.
Linnenbrink-GarciaL., DurikA. M., ConleyA. M., BarronK. E., TauerJ. M., KarabenickS. A., & HarackiewiczJ. M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 647–671. doi: 10.1177/0013164409355699
21.
MassonM. E., & LoftusG. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220. doi: 10.1037/h0087426
22.
MasonW., & SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
23.
McDanielM. A., & EinsteinG. O. (2005). Material appropriate difficulty: A framework for determining when difficulty is desirable for improving learning. In HealyA. F. (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 73–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
24.
McVayJ. C., MeierM. E., TouronD. R., & KaneM. J. (2013). Aging ebbs the flow of thought: adult age differences in mind wandering, executive control, and self-evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 142, 136–147. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.006
25.
MossJ., SchunnC. D., SchneiderW., & McNamaraD. S. (2013). The nature of mind wandering during reading varies with the cognitive control demands of the reading strategy. Brain Research, 1539, 48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.09.047
26.
MossJ., SchunnC. D., SchneiderW., McNamaraD. S., & VanLehnK. (2011). The neural correlates of strategic reading comprehension: Cognitive control and discourse comprehension. NeuroImage, 58, 675–686. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.034
27.
NelsonT. O., & LeonesioR. J. (1988). “Allocation of self-paced study time and the labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676–686.
28.
OlneyA. M., RiskoE. F., D'MelloS. K., & GraesserA. C. (2015). Attention in educational contexts: The role of the learning task in guiding attention. In FawcettJ., RiskoE. F., & KingstoneA., (Eds.,). Handbook of Attention, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
PeterJ. P., ChurchillG. A.Jr, & BrownT. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 655–662. doi: 10.1086/209329
30.
RadvanskyG. A., & CopelandD. E. (2001). Working memory and situation model updating. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1073–1080. doi: 10.3758/BF03206375
31.
RawsonK. A. (2012). Why do rereading lag effects depend on test delay?Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 870–884. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.004
32.
RawsonK. A., DunloskyJ., & ThiedeK. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004–1010. doi: 10.3758/BF03209348
33.
RawsonK. A., & KintschW. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 70–80. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.70
34.
RiskoE. F., AndersonN., SarwalA., EngelhardtM., & KingstoneA. (2012). Everyday attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive. Psychology, 26, 234–242. doi: 10.1002/acp.1814
35.
RiskoE. F., BuchananD., MedimorecS., & KingstoneA. (2013). Everyday attention: Mind wandering and computer use during lectures. Computers and Education, 68, 275–283. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.001
36.
SchoolerJ. W., ReichleE. D. & HalpernD. V. (2004). Zoning-out during reading: Evidence for dissociations between experience and meta-consciousness. In LevinD. T. (Ed.), Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children (pp. 204–226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
SchwarzN. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for real-time data capture. In StoneA., ShiffmanS. S., AtienzaA., & NebelingL. (Eds.), The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research (pp. 11–26). New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
SeliP., CarriereJ. S. A., & SmilekD. (2014). Not all mind wandering is created equal: Dissociating deliberate from spontaneous mind wandering. Psychological Research, 79, 750–758. doi:10.1007/s00426–014-0617-x
39.
SeliP., CheyneJ. A., XuM., PurdonC., & SmilekD. (2015). Motivation and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 41, 1417–1425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000116
40.
SeliP., SmallwoodJ., CheyneJ. A., & SmilekD. (2015). On the relation of mind wandering and ADHD symptomatology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 629–636. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0793-0
41.
SimmonsJ. P., NelsonL. D., & SimonsohnU. (2012). A 21 word solution. Available at SSRN 2160588.
42.
SmallwoodJ. (2013). Distinguishing how from why the mind wanders: A process–occurrence framework for self-generated mental activity. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 519–535. doi: 10.1037/a0030010
43.
SmallwoodJ., FishmanD. J., & SchoolerJ. W. (2007). Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an under recognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 230–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03194057
44.
SmallwoodJ., McSpaddenM., & SchoolerJ. W. (2008). When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1144–1150. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.6.1144
45.
SmallwoodJ., & SchoolerJ. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946
46.
SzpunarK. K., KhanN. Y., & SchacterD. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 6313–6317. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221764110
47.
TangneyJ. P., BaumeisterR. F. & BooneA. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
48.
ThomsonD. R., BesnerD., & SmilekD. (2013). In pursuit of off-task thought: mind wandering-performance trade-offs while reading aloud and color naming. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00360
