Familiarity and Retrieval Processes in Delayed Judgments of Learning (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process
Memory & Cognition, 2005
Three experiments tested the hypothesis that people make judgments of learning (JOLs) by attempting to retrieve the target first. If this were the whole story, then the reaction time (RT) functions for making JOLs with no special instructions would parallel those found when people are told to first attempt retrieval and then make a JOL. In the present data, monotonic functions, showing an increase in RT with decreasing JOL, were found when people were instructed to retrieve covertly or overtly and then make a JOL, as would be expected if retrieval fluency entirely determined JOLs. However, the functions for making uninstructed JOLs were different: Low JOLs were made quickly, not slowly, and the curves were inverted U shapes, rather than linear. Furthermore, people's memory performance was somewhat better, especially on low-JOL items, when they were instructed to first retrieve as opposed to when they were told only to make JOLs. To account for these data, we propose a two-stage model of JOLs, with the first stage occurring prior to attempted retrieval.
Memory & Cognition, 2012
Although successful retrieval practice is beneficial for memory, various factors (e.g., lag and criterion level) moderate this benefit. Accordingly, the efficacy of retrieval practice depends on how students use retrieval practice during learning, which in turn depends on accurate metacognitive monitoring. The present experiments evaluated the extent to which judgments of learning (JOLs) made after correct responses are sensitive to factors (i.e., lag and criterion level) that moderate retrieval practice effects, as well as which cues influence JOLs under these conditions. Participants completed retrieval practice for word pairs with either short or long lags between practice trials until items were correctly recalled 1, 3, 6, or 9 times. After the criterion trial for an item, participants judged the likelihood of recalling that item on the final test 1 week later. JOLs showed correct directional sensitivity to criterion level, with both final test performance and JOLs increasing as criterion level increased. However, JOLs showed incorrect directional sensitivity to lag, with greater performance but lower JOLs for longer versus shorter lags. Additionally, results indicated that retrieval fluency and metacognitive beliefs about criterion level-but not lag-influenced JOLs.
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 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...
A Dual Memory Theory of the Testing Effect
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2018
A new theoretical framework for the testing effect —the finding that retrieval practice is usually more effective for learning than are other strategies — is proposed, the empirically supported tenet of which is that separate memories form as a consequence of study and test events. A simplest case quantitative model is derived from that framework for the case of cued recall. With no free parameters, that model predicts both proportion correct in the test condition and the magnitude of the testing effect across ten experiments conducted in our laboratory, experiments that varied with respect to material type, retention interval, and performance in the restudy condition. The model also provides the first quantitative accounts of: (a) the testing effect as a function of performance in the restudy condition, (b) the upper bound magnitude of the testing effect, (c) the effect of correct answer feedback, (d) the testing effect as a function of retention interval for the cases of feedback and no feedback, and (e) the effect of prior learning method on subsequent learning through testing. Candidate accounts of several other core phenomena in the literature, including test potentiated learning, recognition vs. cued recall training effects, cued vs. free recall final test effects, and other select transfer effects, are also proposed. Future prospects and relations to other theories are discussed.