Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process (original) (raw)

Familiarity and Retrieval Processes in Delayed Judgments of Learning

Journal of Experimental Psychology-learning Memory and Cognition, 2008

Two processes are postulated to underlie delayed judgments of learning (JOLs)-cue familiarity and target retrievability. The two processes are distinguishable because the familiarity-based judgments are thought to be faster than the retrieval-based processes, because only retrieval-based JOLs should enhance the relative accuracy of the correlations between the JOLs and criterion test performance, and because only retrieval-based judgments should enhance memory. To test these predictions, in three experiments, the authors either speeded people's JOLs or allowed them to be unspeeded. The relative accuracy of the JOLs in predicting performance on the criterion test was higher for the unspeeded JOLs than for the speeded JOLs, as predicted. The unspeeded JOL conditions showed enhanced memory as compared with the speeded JOL conditions, as predicted. Finally, the unspeeded JOLs were sensitive to manipulations that modified recallability of the target, whereas the speeded JOLs were selectively sensitive to experimental variations in the familiarity of the cues. Thus, all three of the predictions about the consequences of the two processes potentially underlying delayed JOLs were borne out. A model of the processes underlying delayed JOLs based on these and earlier results is presented.

The effect of delayed judgments of learning on retention

Metacognition and Learning

Evidence is mixed concerning whether delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) enhance learning and if so, whether their benefit is similar to retrieval practice. One potential explanation for the mixed findings is the truncated search hypothesis, which states that not all delayed JOLs lead to a full-blown covert retrieval attempt. In three paired-associate learning experiments, we examined the effect of delayed JOLs on later recall by comparing them to conditions of restudy, overt retrieval, and various other delayed JOL conditions. In Experiment 1, after an initial study phase, subjects either restudied word pairs, practiced overt retrieval, or made cue-only or cue-target delayed JOLs. In Experiments 2a and 2b, where conditions were manipulated within-subjects, subjects either restudied word pairs, practiced overt retrieval, made cue-only delayed JOLs, made cueonly delayed JOLs followed by a yes/no retrieval question or, in another condition, by an overt retrieval prompt. The final cued recall tests were delayed by two days. In Experiment 1, recall after cue-only delayed JOLs did not reliably differ from recall after overt retrieval or restudy. In Experiments 2a and 2b, delayed JOLs consistently produced poorer recall relative to overt retrieval. Furthermore, reaction times for delayed JOLs were shorter relative to delayed JOLs paired with overt retrieval prompts. We conclude that only some delayed JOLs elicit covert retrieval attempts, a pattern supporting the truncated search hypothesis.

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Journal of Memory and Language, 2008

The Underconfidence with Practice (UPW) effect . Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgment of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131,[147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162], found in multi-trial learning, is marked by a pattern of underconfidence accompanied by an increase in resolution between the judgments and test on and after the second trial. We tested whether the memory for past test (MPT) heuristic . The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 238-244.] could explain the resolution and calibration effects. To selectively alter Trial 1 test performance, and hence MPT, we manipulated the number of repetitions (Experiment 1) or the study time (Experiment 2) on Trial 1, but then the manipulation was reversed on Trial 2, thereby equating final performance. Despite equivalent Trial 2 recall performance, Trial 2 JOLs reflected the manipulated Trial 1 test performance, providing support for the MPT hypothesis. Follow up experiments tested alternative explanations. We found that people could remember past test and that use of this information would produce both underconfidence and improved resolution. In contrast, neither memory for Trial 1 encoding fluency nor memory for Trial 1 JOLs was able to explain both aspects of the UWP effect. These experiments support the proposal that people use the memory for past test heuristic to make second trial immediate JOLs, and that its use can account for the UWP effect.

The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance: Positive, negative, or both?

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2018

A common measure of memory monitoring-judgments of learning (JOLs)-has recently been shown to have reactive effects on learning. When participants study a list of related and unrelated word pairs, they recall more related than unrelated pairs. This relatedness effect is larger when people make JOLs than when they do not make them. Evidence is mixed concerning whether this increased relatedness effect arises because JOLs help memory for related pairs, hurt it for unrelated pairs, or do both. In three experiments, we investigated (1) the nature of the increased relatedness effect (i.e., does it arise from positive reactivity for related pairs, negative reactivity for unrelated pairs, or both?) and (2) the mechanisms underlying the effect. Participants studied cue-target word pairs and either did (or did not) make immediate JOLs and then completed a cued-recall test. When participants studied a mixed list consisting of related and unrelated pairs, the increased relatedness effect was largely driven by positive reactivity. When participants studied pure lists consisting solely of related or unrelated word pairs (Experiment 2 only), the increased relatedness effect was minimized. These and other findings suggest that making JOLs helps learning more than hurts it, and that this reactive effect partly occurs because making JOLs changes people's learning goals.

Retrieval attempts enhance learning, but retrieval success (versus failure) does not matter

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2015

Retrieving information from memory enhances learning. We propose a 2-stage framework to explain the benefits of retrieval. Stage 1 takes place as one attempts to retrieve an answer, which activates knowledge related to the retrieval cue. Stage 2 begins when the answer becomes available, at which point appropriate connections are strengthened and inappropriate connections may be weakened. This framework raises a basic question: Does it matter whether Stage 2 is initiated via successful retrieval or via an external presentation of the answer? To test this question, we asked participants to attempt retrieval and then randomly assigned items (which were equivalent otherwise) to be retrieved successfully or to be copied (i.e., not retrieved). Experiments 1, 2, 4, and 5 tested assumptions necessary for interpreting Experiments 3a, 3b, and 6. Experiments 3a, 3b, and 6 did not support the hypothesis that retrieval success produces more learning than does retrieval failure followed by feedback. It appears that retrieval attempts promote learning but retrieval success per se does not.

Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2009

Taking tests enhances learning. But what happens when one cannot answer a test question-does an unsuccessful retrieval attempt impede future learning or enhance it? The authors examined this question using materials that ensured that retrieval attempts would be unsuccessful. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were asked fictional general-knowledge questions (e.g., "What peace treaty ended the Calumet War?"). In Experiments 3-6, participants were shown a cue word (e.g., whale) and were asked to guess a weak associate (e.g., mammal); the rare trials on which participants guessed the correct response were excluded from the analyses. In the test condition, participants attempted to answer the question before being shown the answer; in the read-only condition, the question and answer were presented together. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhanced learning with both types of materials. These results demonstrate that retrieval attempts enhance future learning; they also suggest that taking challenging tests-instead of avoiding errors-may be one key to effective learning.

Unsuccessful retrieval 1 Running Head: UNSUCCESSFUL RETRIEVAL AND SUBSEQUENT LEARNING

2014

Please do not quote without permission. Unsuccessful retrieval 2 Taking tests enhances learning. But what happens when one cannot answer a test question—does an unsuccessful retrieval attempt impede future learning, or enhance it? We examined this question using materials that insured that retrieval attempts would be unsuccessful. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were asked fictional general-knowledge questions (e.g., “What peace treaty ended the Calumet War?”). In Experiments 3-6, participants were shown a cue word (e.g., whale) and were asked to guess a weak associate (e.g., mammal); the rare trials on which participants guessed the correct response were excluded from the analyses. In the test condition, participants attempted to answer the question before being shown the answer; in the read-only condition, the question and answer were presented together. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhanced learning with both types of materials. These results demonstrate that retrieval at...

Retrieval Practice Facilitates Judgments of Learning Through Multiple Mechanisms

2019

Prior studies have shown that predictions of subsequent performance (i.e., Judgments of Learning, JoLs) following practice tests are more accurate than those following re-study. The majority of studies have suggested that retrieval practice allows people to base their predictions on the current retrieval outcomes so that they assign a higher likelihood of remembering the answers with high confidence. We speculated that other information made available through retrieval practice might also be important for JoLs. In the present study, we asked participants to study word pairs and undergo either a practice test or re-study. Two testing formats (cued-recall and multiple choice) were administrated for practice tests in two separate experiments. After each practice trial, participants rated their confidence in the current retrieval accuracy (test) or confidence in acquisition (re-study), followed by a JoL rating where participants predicted their performance in the final test one day late...