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

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.

Keywords: advance study-time planning; exam taking; learning; resit exams; study-time allocation.

Figure 1

Task display. The task display as presented to participants during the study phase in Experiment 1. The display showed the pseudoword pair in the middle, an indication of the type of exam in the top left, an index indicating which word pair the participants was studying at the bottom, and the time, bonus, and total earnings counters at the top right. Additionally, the display included two light-gray buttons on which the participants could click at any point to either continue to the next pair, or take the test.

Figure 2

Passing probability function. The passing probability function used in Experiment 2.The function relates the investment of a maximum of 5 minutes of study time to the probability of passing an exam consisting of 10 3-alternative multiple-choice questions.

Figure 3

Task display. The task display as presented to participants during the study phase in Experiment 2. The display showed the pseudoword pair in the middle, an indication of the type of exam in the top left, an index indicating which word pair the participants was studying at the bottom, and the time, bonus, total earnings, and passing probability indication counters at the top right. Additionally, the display included two light-gray buttons on which the participants could click at any point to either continue to the next pair, or take the test.

Figure 4

Stimulus material. The plot used as the stimulus material. Depicted is the relationship between hypothetical study time investment (x-axis) and the probability of passing a simulated exam (y-axis). Also depicted is the feedback, consisting of the outcome of the simulated exam, shown after participants invested their desired amount of hypothetical study time. Due to the arbitrary nature of the number of study-time units, the numbers on the x-axis were not presented to participants during the experiment, but are included in the figure for clarity.

Figure 5

Mean study-time investment. Mean study-time investments for NR (single exam) and R1 (first exam with resit opportunity), per feedback condition (immediate vs. delayed). Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals for the means.