Search

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy–cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When learners make judgments of learning (JOLs) for some word pairs but not others, how and why is recall performance affected? Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for a randomly selected half of the pairs. We evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in pair difficulty and to change their learning goal. Because JOLs are manipulated within participants, such a goal change should influence how all (judged or non-judged) pairs are processed on the list, which should lead to no JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity (i.e., higher recall for judged versus non-judged pairs) for related than unrelated pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the two words in a pair, which would be more beneficial for pairs with an a priori relationship. Across experiments, we found positive reactivity for both related and unrelated pairs (albeit to a lesser degree for the latter). We also found no evidence that learners make qualitative changes in their reported strategy use when judging pairs. Making JOLs for some pairs on a list influenced memory performance and the pattern of reactivity provided support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: We investigated students' knowledge and beliefs about the impact of using three‐dimensional (3D) multimedia presentations. Students listened to a lecture about the ventricular system, which was presented alone (Experiment 1 only) or with a 3D or a 2D video illustrating the system. Afterwards, students judged how well they would perform on a criterion test. In Experiment 1, students judged that the 3D presentation would be superior to listening to the lecture alone (d = 0.81). Mean judgments were higher for the 3D than 2D presentation (d = 0.24), but this difference was not significant, so we estimated the effect size again. In Experiment 2, judgments were significantly higher after the 3D than 2D presentations (d = 0.40). Test performance was not significantly greater after the 3D than 2D presentations. A survey study again revealed that students believe 3D presentations are superior, and most students reported preferring them to 2D presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Age-related differences in memory monitoring appear when people learn emotional words. Namely, younger adults’ judgments of learning (JOLs) are higher for positive than neutral words, whereas older adults’ JOLs do not discriminate between positive versus neutral words. In two experiments, we evaluated whether this age-related difference extends to learning positive versus neutral pictures. We also evaluated the contribution of two dimensions of emotion that may impact younger and older adults’ JOLs: valence and arousal. Younger and older adults studied pictures that were positive or neutral and either high or low in arousal. Participants made immediate JOLs and completed memory tests. In both experiments, the magnitude of older adults’ JOLs was influenced by emotion, and both younger and older adults demonstrated an emotional salience effect on JOLs. As important, the magnitude of participants’ JOLs was influenced by valence, and not arousal. Emotional salience effects were also evident on participants’ free recall, and older adults recalled as many pictures as did younger adults. Taken together, these data suggest that older adults do not have a monitoring deficit when learning positive (vs. neutral) pictures and that emotional salience effects on younger and older adults’ JOLs are produced more by valence than by arousal. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are higher for identical pairs (dog–dog) than for related pairs (dog–cat). Thisidentical effectmay be mediated (a) by processing fluency (i.e., identical pairs are processed faster than related pairs) or (b) by a belief that identical pairs are better remembered or (c) by both factors. In the present work, we assessed the contribution of both factors. We evaluated whether a measure of processing fluency (i.e., self-paced study) mediated the relationship between pair type and JOLs (Experiment 1) and attempted to disrupt processing fluency using an AlTeRnAtInG presentation format (Experiment 2). We also evaluated whether judgments made in the absence of processing fluency demonstrated the identical effect (Experiment 3), and, finally, we had participants read a vignette about an experiment that included both pair types and estimate which pairs would be best remembered (Experiment 4). Evidence from all experiments converged on the conclusion that people's beliefs about how variables affect memory—and not differential fluency—best explain the identical effect, although we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that fluency plays a small role. The outcomes were consistent with theanalytic-processing theoryof JOLs—namely, when instructed to make JOLs, people adopt an analytic problem-solving approach that involves identifying variation across pairs that plausibly relate to memory and then use this variation to make JOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

When learning items that vary in reward, students improve their scores (i.e., earned reward) with task experience. In four experiments, we examined whether such improvements arise from better selective encoding of items that would earn more (vs. less) reward. Participants studied and recalled words across multiple study-test trials. On each trial, 12 words were slated with different values (typically from 1 to 12), and participants earned the point value assigned to a given word if it was correctly recalled. In all experiments, participants earned more points across the first two trials. In Experiment 1, participants either self-paced their study or had experimenter-paced study and in Experiment 2, some participants were penalised for each second spent during study. Improvements in points earned were related to increases in overall recall but not to selective encoding. In Experiment 3, some participants were given value-emphasised instructions, yet they did not demonstrate selective encoding. In Experiment 4, we used a larger range of point values, but selective encoding still did not account for the improvement in point scores across lists. These results suggest that metacognitively-driven selective encoding is not necessary to observe improvements in value-based learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The target articles make significant advances in our understanding of students'' judgments of their cognitive processes and products. In general, the advances are relative to a subset of common themes, which we call the four cornerstones of research on metacognitive judgments. We discuss how the target articles build on these cornerstones (judgment bases, judgment accuracy, judgment reliability, and control) and how they are relevant to improving student achievement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Prior research suggests that older adults judge their learning as well as young adults, but given age-related differences in the processing of emotional materials, older adults may show deficits in their judgment accuracy when they study emotionally charged words. In 2 experiments, we evaluated this possibility by having young and older adults study negative, positive, and neutral words. They made a judgment of learning (JOL) after studying each word and then later had a free recall test. In Experiment 1, young and older adults' JOLs were sensitive to negative words (higher JOLs for negative than neutral words). By contrast, whereas young adults' JOLs were sensitive to positive emotion (higher for positive than neutral words), older adults' JOLs were insensitive. In Experiment 2, we replicated this age-related deficit in sensitivity to positive emotion, as well as evaluated possible explanations for it. As important, in both experiments, JOLs were plotted as a function of input serial position, and the shape of these curves were not influenced by emotional valence or age group. Taken together, these results indicate that healthy aging largely leaves judgments of learning intact for negatively charged words. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In three experiments, preschoolers’ ability to predict their picture recall was examined. Children studied 10 pictures, predicted how many they would recall, and then attempted to recall them. This study–prediction–recall trial was repeated multiple times with new pictures on each trial. In Experiment 1, children were overconfident on the initial trial, and this overconfidence persisted across three trials. In Experiment 2, children predicted either their own performance or another child’s performance. Their predictions were overconfident across all trials regardless of whether they made predictions for themselves or for another child, suggesting that wishful thinking cannot fully account for their overconfidence. In Experiment 3, some children postdicted their previous recall performance prior to making each prediction. Although their postdictions were quite accurate, their predictions were still overconfident across five trials. Preschoolers’ overconfidence was remarkably resistant to the repeated experience of recalling fewer pictures than the children had predicted. Even asking them to report the number that they recalled on a previous trial, which they could do accurately, did not cause them to lower their predictions across trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The authors explored the relations between predictions of the likelihood of recalling studied items (called judgments of learning, or JOLs) and second-order judgments (SOJs), in which one rates confidence in the accuracy of each JOL. Each participant studied paired-associate items and made JOLs. A given JOL was either immediate or delayed and was followed immediately by an SOJ. After all items were studied and judged, paired-associate recall occurred. The incorporation of SOJs into this standard method yielded numerous outcomes relevant to theory of metacognitive judgments. SOJs were greater for extreme JOLs (0, 100) than for intermediate JOLs (40, 50). Also, JOL accuracy was greater for delayed than for immediate JOLs, and, reflecting this delayed- JOL effect, SOJs were greater for delayed than for immediate JOLs. These and other outcomes support 2-process hypotheses of how people make JOLs and uncover some pitfalls in interpreting poor judgment accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated two hypotheses—transfer appropriate monitoring (TAM) and the accessibility hypothesis-that explain why the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments is commonly low. In 2 experiments, participants read six expository texts, made global judgments about how well they would perform on a test over each text, and made term-specific judgments for predicting the recall of definitions embedded in each text. Criterion tests involved term-cued recall of the definitions. In Experiment 1, some participants made judgments after reading the texts, whereas others overtly attempted retrieval of each definition before making judgments. In Experiment 2, all participants had pre-judgment recall, and some also scored the correctness of the pre-judgment responses. Accuracy was greater for term-specific than global judgments, but only when pre-judgment recall was required. Term-specific accuracy was also constrained by accessing incorrect information. We argue that TAM is not a viable explanation of accuracy and discuss how to improve judgment accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preschoolers' ability to make judgments of learning (JOLs) was examined in 3 experiments in which they were taught proper names for animals. In Experiment 1, when judgments were made immediately after studying, nearly every child predicted subsequent recall of every name. When judgments were made after a delay, fewer showed this response tendency. The delayed JOLs of those who predicted at least 1 recall failure were still overconfident, however, and were not correlated with final recall. In Experiment 2, children received a second study trial with feedback, made JOLs after a delay, and completed an additional forced-choice judgment task. In this task, an animal whose name had been recalled was pitted against an animal whose name had not been recalled, and the children chose the one they were more likely to remember later. Compared with Experiment 1, more children predicted at least 1 recall failure and predictions were moderately accurate. In the forced-choice task, animal names that had just been successfully recalled were typically chosen over ones that had not. Experiment 3 examined the effect of providing an additional retrieval attempt on delayed JOLs. Half of the children received a single study session, and half received an additional study session with feedback. Children in the practice group showed less overconfidence than those in the no-practice group. Taken together, the results suggest that, with minimal task experience, most preschoolers understand that they will not remember everything and that if they cannot recall something at present, they are unlikely to recall it in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]