People use the memory for past-test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning (original) (raw)
Related papers
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 as Memory Modifiers
PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2014
A frequent procedure used to study how individuals monitor their own learning is to collect judgments of learning (JOLs) during acquisition, considered to be important, in part, because such judgments are assumed to guide how individuals allocate their future learning resources. In such research, however, a tacit assumption is frequently made: Namely, that asking for such metacognitive judgments does not affect the learning process per se. In 3 experiments, the present research addressed the accuracy of this assumption and tested a possible account-based on aspects of Koriat's cue-utilization approach to JOLs (Koriat, 1997) and de Winstanley, Bjork, and Bjork's (1996) transfer-appropriate multifactor account of generation effects-for why the mere act of making JOLs might enhance later memory for the information so judged. Potential implications of the present findings for the future conduction of research using metacognitive measures as well as for students studying for exams is discussed.
Metacognitive judgments can potentiate new learning: The role of covert retrieval
Metacognition and Learning
Interim tests of previously studied information can potentiate subsequent learning of new information, in part, because retrieval-based processes help to reduce proactive interference from previously learned information. We hypothesized that an effect similar to this forward testing effect would also occur when making judgments of (prior) learning (JOLs). Previous research showed that making JOLs likely prompts covert retrieval attempts and thereby enhances memory, specifically when providing only parts of previously studied information. This study examined the forward effect of different types of JOLs (i.e., with complete or partial prior study information available) on subsequent learning of new materials, compared to restudy and retrieval practice. In a between-subjects design, participants (N = 161) consecutively studied five lists of 20 words with the aim to recall as many of them on a final cumulative recall test. After the presentation of each of the first four lists, partici...
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.
Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning
Memory & Cognition
There is much evidence that metacognitive judgments, such as people's predictions of their future memory performance (judgments of learning, JOLs), are inferences based on cues and heuristics. However, relatively little is known about whether and when people integrate multiple cues in one metacognitive judgment or focus on a single cue without integrating further information. The current set of experiments systematically addressed whether and to what degree people integrate multiple extrinsic and intrinsic cues in JOLs. Experiment 1 varied two cues: number of study presentations (1 vs. 2) and font size (18 point vs. 48 point). Results revealed that people integrated both cues in their JOLs. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the two word characteristics concreteness (abstract vs. concrete) and emotionality (neutral vs. emotional) were integrated in JOLs. Experiment 3 showed that people integrated all four cues in their JOLs when manipulated simultaneously. Finally, Experiment 4 confirmed integration of three cues that varied on a continuum rather than in two easily distinguishable levels. These results demonstrate that people have a remarkable capacity to integrate multiple cues in metacognitive judgments. In addition, our findings render an explanation of cue effects on JOLs in terms of demand characteristics implausible.
Journal of Memory and Language, 2017
Across three experiments we examined the basis for participants' judgments of learning (JOLs)-memory beliefs or fluency-by manipulating item relatedness and font size and collecting prestudy JOLs, immediate JOLs, or both types (combination) of JOLs. Experiment 3 also measured self-paced study time as an indirect measure of participants' perceived fluency of items. All three experiments revealed higher prestudy, immediate, and combination JOLs for related, and large font items than for unrelated, or small font items. However, combination conditions suggested that prestudy and immediate JOLs are not identical. Prestudy and immediate JOLs differed both in terms of magnitude and accuracy, with higher magnitude and relative accuracy for immediate JOLs than prestudy JOLs in all three experiments, suggesting memory beliefs alone are not sufficient to accurately track memory performance. These results combine with the study time data in Experiment 3, which did not differ significantly as a function of font size, to suggest that memory beliefs influence both types of JOLs. However, as participants gained exposure to stimuli characteristics, immediate JOLs shifted more than prestudy JOLs, suggesting that the timing of immediate JOLs facilitates participants' analysis of fluency and other item qualities that affect recall, which are then factored into participants' immediate JOLs more so than prestudy JOLs.
Feedback Reduces the Metacognitive Benefit of Tests
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Testing long-term memory has dual benefits: It enhances learning and it helps learners discriminate what they know from what they do not know. The latter benefit, known as delayed judgment of learning (dJOL) effect, has been well documented, but in prior research participants have not been provided with test feedback. Yet when people study they almost universally (a) get feedback and (b) judge their learning subsequent to receiving the feedback. Thus, in the first three experiments, participants made JOLs following tests with feedback. Adding feedback significantly decreased the dJOL effect relative to conditions taking a test without receiving feedback. In Experiment 4, participants made decisions about which items to restudy (without actually restudying); adding feedback also decreased the accuracy of these decisions. These findings suggest that, in realistic situations, tests enhance self-monitoring, but not as much as previously thought. Judging memory based on prior test performance and ignoring the effects of feedback appears to produce an "illusion of not knowing."
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...