Search

It is well established that monitoring one's memory performance involves engaging in metacognitive monitoring and activating the frontal cortex. Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are individuals' assessments of the likelihood of remembering a specific item on a future test, usually occurring after learning and before testing. An ongoing debate exists regarding whether participants' metacognitive monitoring is based on a single process or two distinct processes when making JOLs. In this study, we investigated the electrophysiological correlates of JOLs induced by an episodic memory task in 38 adult participants. Participants completed a word pairs memory task and rated their memory performance after remembered whole items. We observed that participants with high judgments of learning had faster reaction times compared to those with low judgments of learning. The electrophysiological results revealed that low judgments of learning were associated with a more negative frontal-central N400-600 amplitude, while high judgments of learning were associated with a larger frontal-parietal slow wave amplitude. Furthermore, low judgments of learning exhibited greater theta band event-related synchronization (θ-ERS) and beta band event-related desynchronization (β-ERD) during the metacognitive monitoring phase compared to high judgments of learning. Brain-behavior correlations also indicated a relationship between the 600–1000 component and behavioral performance, highlighting differential effects between high and low JOLs when making metacognitive monitoring ratings. These findings extend previous research and suggest that the formation of JOL ratings involves two distinct stages: the first stage involves obtaining retrieval fluency cues (frontal-central N400-600 amplitude), while the second stage involves utilizing these cues for metacognitive monitoring (frontal-parietal slow wave amplitude). Varying item familiarity and degrees of retrieval familiarity contribute to differences in JOL ratings. In summary, this study provides compelling evidence for a two-stage process in metacognitive monitoring ratings from both neurophysiological and brain-behavior correlation perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are assumed to be made inferentially, based on cues. This cue-utilization approach substituted the theory that memory strength guides JOLs. The rejection of this theory ignores the existence of two memory systems: working memory (WM), which holds representations immediately accessible, and long-term memory (LTM), which is a permanent store. By manipulating and measuring WM strength, we tested a revised version of the memory-strength theory in which JOLs are guided by WM representations. In Experiment 1, participants memorized sequences of two or four colored objects, then they provided JOLs for an LTM test of these objects, and performed a WM test on the objects' colors. After learning 200 objects, the LTM test followed. Sequence-length affected WM, but not LTM performance. JOLs, however, were higher for sequences of two than for four objects and correlated higher with WM than LTM performance. We replicated these results with a simultaneous presentation of the objects (Experiment 2), in the absence of a WM test (Experiment 3), and in a word-pair task (Experiment 4). Overall, our findings are consistent with the revised memory-strength theory. WM strength should therefore be considered when examining the factors guiding JOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research suggests that making Judgments of Learning (JOLs) can significantly influence memory performance, commonly known as JOL reactivity. While recent investigations have highlighted the role of learning material attributes in JOL reactivity, the impact of emotions on this process has received less attention. Additionally, the cognitive mechanisms underlying JOL reactivity remain debated. This study aimed to investigate the influence of emotion on JOL reactivity and its associated cognitive mechanisms. In Experiment 1, participants were assigned to make JOLs or refrain from such judgments while learning adjectives with positive, negative, and neutral valences. Subsequently, they underwent a recognition test. The results revealed that participants displayed JOL reactivity when exposed to positive and neutral words, but not when encountering negative words. Experiment 2, utilizing nouns as learning material and manipulating the emotion of new words in the recognition test, replicated the findings of Experiment 1. Collectively, both experiments demonstrated distinct effects of emotions on JOL reactivity. These findings provide support for the enhanced learning engagement theory of JOL reactivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractMaking judgments of learning (JOLs) can directly influence memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect of JOLs. However, controversy surrounds the mechanism behind JOL reactivity. This study employs related and unrelated word pairs as learning materials to compare memory outcomes across different JOL conditions. We contrasted the traditional JOL reactivity paradigm with a covert retrieval induction paradigm to explore whether JOLs impact memory through covert retrieval. In Experiment 1, data from 40 participants (18 females, 22 males) were analyzed, revealed distinct patterns between the two paradigms. When word pairs are presented entirely, the JOL group outperforms the no-JOL group in memorizing related pairs, aligning with traditional JOL reactivity. Conversely, when target words are omitted, the JOL group’s memory resembles that of the no-JOL group. This comparison suggested that JOLs may prompt covert retrieval. In Experiment 2, which involved manipulating the retrieval strength, data from 52 participants (46 females, 6 males) were analyzed, yielded results consistent with those of Experiment 1. We conclude that covert retrieval significantly contributes to the JOL reactivity effect, enhancing memory through JOL-induced covert retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has shown a clear self-reference effect in our memory. However, the question arises as to whether this effect could extend to higher cognitive domains such as metamemory. Thus, this study examined the effects of different encoding types on judgments of learning (JOLs) and explored the role of beliefs in this process. A one-way (encoding type: semantic, self-referential) within-participants design was employed in Experiment 1, which found no self-reference effect in JOLs. In Experiment 2, we manipulated participants' beliefs to explore their effect on JOLs under different encoding strategies. The results showed that learners' metamemory beliefs about encoding types influence JOLs. Learners who believed that self-referential and semantic encoding had the same memory effect tended to give equal JOLs to both words. However, learners who believed that self-referential encoding had a better memory effect than semantic encoding gave higher JOLs to self-referentially encoded words. The conclusions are as follows: There is no self-reference effect in JOLs, but learners' metamemory beliefs about encoding types influence JOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite research showing that perceptually fluent stimuli (i.e., stimuli that are easier to process) are given higher judgment of learning (JOL) ratings than perceptually disfluent stimuli, it remains unknown whether the influence of perceptual fluency on JOLs is driven by the fluent or disfluent items. Moreover, it is unclear whether this difference hinges on relative differences in fluency. The current study addressed these unanswered questions by employing (Fiacconi et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46:926–944, 2020), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46[5], 926–944) letter set priming procedure. In this procedure, participants are first exposed to words containing only a subset of letters. Following this exposure, JOLs to new words composed of the same letters (i.e., fluent), and new words composed of nonexposed letters (i.e., disfluent) are compared with isolate the contribution of perceptual fluency. Because this procedure does not rely on parametric variations in perceptual features, we can directly assess the potential benefit and/or cost of fluent and disfluent items, respectively, by including neutral baseline conditions. Moreover, implementing both a mixed- and pure-list design allowed us to assess the comparative nature of perceptual fluency on JOLs. Counter to previous assumptions, our results are the first to demonstrate that perceptual disfluency decreases JOLs. Moreover, we found that the influence of perceptual disfluency on JOLs hinges on the relative differences in fluency between items even in the absence of a belief about the mnemonic impact of the fluency manipulation. These findings have important implications as they provide evidence that the difficulty, rather than ease, of information form the basis of individuals metacognitive judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful recognition is generally thought to be based on both recollection and familiarity of studied information. Recent studies found that making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively facilitate recognition performance, a form of reactivity effect on memory. The current study aimed to explore the roles of recollection and familiarity in the reactivity effect on recognition performance. Experiment 1 replicated the positive reactivity effect on recognition performance. Experiment 2 used the sequential remember/know (R/K) procedure, Experiment 3 utilized the simultaneous R/K procedure, and Experiment 4 inserted a long study-test interval (i.e., 24-h) to determine the roles of recollection and familiarity in the reactivity effect. These three experiments converged in demonstrating that making JOLs reactively facilitated recognition performance through enhancing both recollection and familiarity. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between the reactive influences on recollection and familiarity. The documented findings imply that the JOL reactivity effect on recognition is supported by two underlying mechanisms: greater recollection induced by enhanced distinctiveness, and superior familiarity induced by enhanced learning engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies suggest that making judgments of learning (JOLs)—self-assessment of current learning status—may not merely be a neutral cognitive process, but can directly improve learning through what is called ‘JOL reactivity’. This study investigated whether making JOLs can facilitate the learning of previously studied materials (backward effect) and newly studied materials (forward effect) in inductive learning. We also examined how this effect varies depending on whether a JOL is accompanied by a retrieval attempt. Across three experiments, participants learned about various butterfly species presented in two sections (Sections A and B). Some participants made JOLs between Section A and Section B, while others did not, and then all participants took a final transfer test for both sections. In Experiment 1, merely making JOLs did not facilitate learning compared to restudy control, regardless of whether JOLs afforded covert retrieval (target-absent JOL) or not (target-present JOL). However, in Experiment 2, when participants made JOLs combined with overt retrieval prompts (retrieval practice + JOL), they outperformed the other groups in the final transfer test of Section B, showing the forward effect. Experiment 3 further revealed that the act of making JOLs combined with overt retrieval practice was as effective as (but not more than) retrieval practice without JOLs in promoting new learning. Our findings indicate that conventional forms of JOLs do not appear to enhance inductive learning; rather, they underscore the critical role of retrieval in facilitating inductive learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively alter memory itself, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study recorded electroencephalography (EEG) signals during the encoding phase of a word list learning task to explore the neurocognitive features associated with JOL reactivity. The behavioral results show that making JOLs reactively enhances recognition performance. The EEG results reveal that, compared with not making JOLs, making JOLs increases P200 and LPC amplitudes and decreases alpha and beta power. Additionally, the signals of event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related desynchronizations (ERDs) partially mediate the reactivity effect. These findings support the enhanced learning engagement theory and the elaborative processing explanation to account for the JOL reactivity effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are often reactive on memory for cue-target pairs. This pattern, however, is moderated by relatedness, as related but not unrelated pairs often show a memorial benefit compared to a no-JOL control group. Based on Soderstrom et al.'s, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition41, 553-558, (2015) cue-strengthening account, JOLs direct attention towards intrinsic cues which aid retrieval. However, reactivity may also reflect specific processing of cue-target associations, which is applied whenever semantic associations are available, even when these associations are indirect. The present study tested this possibility using mediated associates (e.g., lion – stripes) which are directly unrelated to each other and indirectly related through a non-presented mediator (e.g., tiger). Based on a cue-strengthening account, no reactivity would be expected for mediated associates. Alternatively, if cue strengthening primarily reflects enhanced processing of cue-target relations, memory benefits would be expected whenever pairs are semantically related, even if pairs are indirectly related through mediators. Overall, reactivity extended to mediated associates in cued-recall (Experiment 1) and recognition tests (Experiments 2 and 3). Interestingly, JOL reactivity was consistently found on recognition of non-mediated unrelated pairs (Experiments 2–4). Thus, positive reactivity on related pairs for cued-recall testing likely reflects increased activation of cue-target associations. However, because recognition is based on familiarity cues, reactivity occurs globally for all pair types, regardless of cue-target relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teachers' ability to accurately judge students' monitoring skills is important as it enables teachers to help students becoming better self-regulated learners. Yet, there is hardly any research on this crucial teacher skill and a framework is missing. We present a novel conceptual and methodological framework integrating teachers' judgments of students' monitoring skills with teachers' judgments of students' performance and students' judgments of their own performance. Using this framework, we explored teachers' ability to judge students' monitoring skills and students' performance. Secondary education teachers judged their own students' performance and monitoring on a reading comprehension test (Nteachers = 46; Nstudents = 406). Teachers' judgments of students' judgment accuracy deviated 14.33% from the actual accuracy of students' own monitoring judgments, with a tendency to underestimate their students' monitoring accuracy. Teachers' judgments of students' performance deviated 21.96% from students' actual performance, with a tendency to overestimate students' performance. So-called performance cues—pieces of information pertaining to students' prior knowledge and skills relevant to the performance task—appeared predictive or diagnostic both for students' performance and for students' monitoring judgments. When making accurate judgments, teachers used diagnostic cues to a greater extent than when making inaccurate judgments. Yet, when making accurate judgments, teachers also used two non-diagnostic cues (students' IQ and self-concept regarding reading comprehension). To further improve teachers' ability to accurately judge students' monitoring, it may be worthwhile to help teachers ignore non-diagnostic cues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several studies revealed that predicting one's memory during learning has reactive effects on memory performance: making judgments of learning (JOLs) improved cued-recall performance for related word pairs and recognition memory for single words but impaired or did not impact cued recall for unrelated word pairs. Very little is known, however, about the generalizability of JOL reactivity to educationally relevant study materials and test conditions. The three experiments reported here examined whether making JOLs affects performance in multiple-choice and short-answer tests on general knowledge facts of varying difficulty. Neither experiment revealed reliable effects of making JOLs on performance, and the same was found in a continuously cumulating meta-analysis that included data from all experiments. These results indicate that soliciting metamemory predictions does not affect test performance for general knowledge facts. Further research will be needed to examine whether this holds for educationally relevant materials and tests in general. General Audience Summary: Self-assessments of one's learning are essential for effectively regulating one's learning behavior. For instance, realizing that one might fail to remember study materials at an exam is essential for making informed decisions about how long one has to study and, ultimately, achieving one's desired grades. In addition to these indirect effects on test performance, lab experiments show that predicting one's test performance (judgments of learning [JOLs]) when learning related word pairs and single words can improve memory performance directly. Based on these findings, researchers have repeatedly suggested that making JOLs could be an effective way to boost learning in educational settings. It is unclear, however, whether direct effects of making JOLs occur with educationally relevant materials and test types. In three experiments, we investigated whether making JOLs enhances performance in open-ended and multiple-choice tests on general knowledge facts. Half of the participants studied general knowledge facts and made JOLs, whereas the others studied general knowledge facts without making JOLs. Afterward, participants took open-ended tests or multiple-choice tests. Making JOLs did not reliably improve performance on any test in any experiment. This finding was replicated in a continuously cumulating meta-analysis. Thus, self-assessments during learning had no direct effects on performance in open-ended and multiple-choice tests for general knowledge facts. More research will be needed to test whether this holds for other educationally relevant materials and tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictions about memory involve the use of metacognition, and metacognition can rely on various cues. The present study investigated metacognition and recall performance when to-be-remembered words differed in font size and emotional valence, to determine what cues are utilised when making metacognitive judgments. Participants were presented with lists of words varying in font size (small and large) and emotional valence (negative and neutral) and were asked to remember as many words as possible for a later recall test while engaging in item-level metacognitive assessments. Specifically, after studying each word, participants either made only judgments of learning (JOLs, Experiment 1) or both JOLs and restudy judgments (Experiment 2). Across experiments, results revealed that while JOLs were sensitive to both font size and emotional valence, restudy judgments were mostly sensitive to emotional valence, and participants' metacognitive assessments mapped onto memory performance generally for emotional words. Additionally, we found that the effect of font size on metacognition and memory was robust to experience-based learning. Together, the current study extends our understanding of how emotion and font size affect metacognition (monitoring and control) and memory and suggests that when presented with multiple cues, certain diagnostic cues can be harnessed to mitigate metacognitive illusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two sources of evidence seem to be shared by judgments of past recognition and judgments of future performance: item memory or familiarity (i.e., memory for the item independent of the context in which it was experienced) and context memory or recollection (i.e., memory for the context specific to a particular prior encounter). However, there are few studies investigating the link between these two putative memory processes and judgments of learning (JOLs). We tested memory and metamemory using a continuous exclusion procedure – a modified recognition memory task where study events for two classes of items are interleaved with test trials in which the subject must endorse items from one class and reject items from the other. This procedure allowed us to estimate the influences of memory for context and memory for item on JOLs and licenses conclusions about the relative role of item and context information in supporting JOLs. An analysis of forgetting revealed that JOLs reflect both the initial degree of learning and the rate of forgetting, but only of memory for context and not of memory for items. These findings suggest that JOLs are predictive of memory for context-bound episodes, rather than for the semantic content of those episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has shown a clear self-reference effect in our memory. However, the question arises as to whether this effect could extend to higher cognitive domains such as metamemory. Thus, this study examined the effects of different encoding types on judgments of learning (JOLs) and explored the role of beliefs in this process. A one-way (encoding type: semantic, self-referential) within-participants design was employed in Experiment 1, which found no self-reference effect in JOLs. In Experiment 2, we manipulated participants’ beliefs to explore their effect on JOLs under different encoding strategies. The results showed that learners’ metamemory beliefs about encoding types influence JOLs. Learners who believed that self-referential and semantic encoding had the same memory effect tended to give equal JOLs to both words. However, learners who believed that self-referential encoding had a better memory effect than semantic encoding gave higher JOLs to self-referentially encoded words. The conclusions are as follows: There is no self-reference effect in JOLs, but learners’ metamemory beliefs about encoding types influence JOLs.

The font size effect refers to the metacognitive illusion that larger fonts lead to higher judgments of learning (JOLs) but not better recall. Prior studies demonstrated robust JOL effects of font size under conditions of intra-item relation (i.e., cue–target relatedness within a word pair), even though intra-item relation is a more diagnostic cue than font size. However, it remains an open question whether the JOL effects of font size persist under conditions of inter-item relation (i.e., relations across items on a single-word list). In the current study, we examined the JOL and recall effects of font size when font size and inter-item relation were factorially manipulated in three JOL-recall experiments. Additionally, to manipulate the salience of inter-item relation, we presented related and unrelated lists in a blocked manner in Experiment 1 but in a mixed manner in Experiments 2 and 3. Our results showed that the JOL effects of font size are moderated or eliminated when inter-item relation is manipulated simultaneously with font size. Moreover, the smaller font led to better recall for related lists but not for unrelated lists across all three experiments. Therefore, our results demonstrate that individual cues may not be integrated with equal weight, and there can be a trade-off between item-specific and relational processing during the JOL process. Additionally, highlighting key information with larger fonts may not be optimal with related items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem – Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja – Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue—font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The font‐size effect on judgments of learning (JOLs) refers to large‐font words being rated as more memorable than small ones when required to predict memory performance during the study phase. This study examines perceptual contrast as the prerequisite for this font‐size effect on JOLs and explores how perceptual contrast leads to this effect. In Experiment 1, perceptual contrast was achieved by inserting words with one font (e.g., 18 pt) into a series of words with another font (e.g., 70 pt) at a particular proportion (1:4). In Experiment 2, perceptual contrast was manipulated by presenting two different font words up and down in a pair. The results of both experiments showed that: (1) participants rated higher JOLs for large than small fonts under the contrast conditions, but the JOL difference between the two fonts was not significant under the no‐contrast conditions; (2) the JOLs of small‐font words under the contrast conditions was reduced compared with the no‐contrast conditions, but the JOLs of large‐font words under the contrast conditions was increased compared with the no‐contrast conditions. These results indicated that perceptual contrast was the prerequisite for the font‐size effect on JOLs. The reason for this effect is that, compared to no‐contrast conditions, perceptual contrast reduces the JOLs of small‐font words while increasing the JOLs of large‐font words. This study may deepen researchers' understanding of the mechanism of the font‐size effect on JOLs and help educators effectively guide students to learn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract. Students are often overconfident in educational settings and struggle to differentiate between well-learned and poorly-learned concepts. The present article reviews current research on strategies that help students assess their understanding, with a focus on research using authentic educational tasks and materials. We propose a framework for these strategies that we refer to as wait-generate-validate. The wait-generate-validate strategies can give students a more objective measure of their learning from lectures, understanding of course concepts, text comprehension, problem-solving ability, and test preparedness. These strategies have been shown to lead to more effective study decisions and greater learning. Lastly, we translate the reviewed research into practical tips for students and teachers and conclude with recommendations for future research regarding how students judge their learning in diverse educational contexts.

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively alter memory itself, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study recorded electroencephalography (EEG) signals during the encoding phase of a word list learning task to explore the neurocognitive features associated with JOL reactivity. The behavioral results show that making JOLs reactively enhances recognition performance. The EEG results reveal that, compared with not making JOLs, making JOLs increases P200 and LPC amplitudes and decreases alpha and beta power. Additionally, the signals of event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related desynchronizations (ERDs) partially mediate the reactivity effect. These findings support the enhanced learning engagement theory and the elaborative processing explanation to account for the JOL reactivity effect.

After a crime is committed, investigators may query witnesses about whether they believe they will be to identify the perpetrator. However, we know little about how such metacognitive judgments are related to performance on a subsequent lineup identification task. The extant research has found the strength of this relationship to be small or nonexistent, which conflicts with the large body of literature indicating a moderate relationship between predictions and performance on memory tasks. In Studies 1–3, we induce variation in encoding quality by having participants watch a mock crime video with either low, medium, or high exposure quality, and then assess their future lineup performance. Calibration analysis revealed that assessments of future lineup performance were predictive of identification accuracy. This relationship was driven primarily by poor performance following low assessments. Studies 4 and 5 showed that these predictions are not based on a witness's evaluation of their encoding experience, nor on a contemporaneous assessment of memory strength. These results reinforce the argument that variation in memory quality is needed to obtain reliable relationships between predictions and performance. An unexpected finding is that witnesses who made a prediction shortly after encoding evinced superior memory compared to those who made a prediction later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students tend to avoid effective but effortful study strategies. One potential explanation could be that high-effort experiences may not give students an immediate feeling of learning, which may affect their perceptions of the strategy’s effectiveness and their willingness to use it. In two experiments, we investigated the role of mental effort in students’ considerations about a typically effortful and effective strategy (interleaved study) versus a typically less effortful and less effective strategy (blocked study), and investigated the effect of individual feedback about students’ study experiences and learning outcomes on their considerations. Participants learned painting styles using both blocked and interleaved studying (within-subjects, Experiment 1, N = 150) or either blocked or interleaved studying (between-subjects, Experiment 2, N = 299), and reported their study experiences and considerations before, during, and after studying. Both experiments confirmed prior research that students reported higher effort investment and made lower judgments of learning during interleaved than during blocked studying. Furthermore, effort was negatively related to students’ judgments of learning and (via these judgments) to the perceived effectiveness of the strategy and their willingness to use it. Interestingly, these relations were stronger in Experiment 1 than in Experiment 2, suggesting that effort might become a more influential cue when students can directly compare experiences with two strategies. Feedback positively affected students’ considerations about interleaved studying, yet not to the extent that they considered it more effective and desirable than blocked studying. Our results provide evidence that students use effort as a cue for their study strategy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively change memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study was designed to explore whether the reactivity effect transfers to subsequent learning of new information. Participants studied two blocks of words (Experiment 1) or related word pairs (Experiments 2 & 3). In Block 1, participants in the experimental (JOL) group made a JOL while studying each item, whereas the control (no-JOL) group did not make item-by-item JOLs. Then both groups studied Block 2, in which they did not make JOLs, and finally, they took a test on Blocks 1 and 2. Across Experiments 1 −3, the results showed superior Block 1 test performance in the JOL than in the no-JOL group, demonstrating a positive reactivity effect. Critically, there was minimal difference in Block 2 test performance between the two groups, implying little transfer of the positive reactivity effect to subsequent learning of new information. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that the reactivity effect still failed to transfer even when participants explicitly appreciated the benefits of making JOLs. Educational implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior knowledge is often strongly related to students' learning. In the present research, we explored the relationship between prior knowledge and the accuracy of students' predictive monitoring judgments (judgments of learning; JOLs) and postdictive monitoring judgments (confidence judgments). In four experiments, students completed prior knowledge tests over two domains (football and cooking), learned new items from those domains, and completed a test over those items. To ensure the learning was new, the items that students learned and were tested over consisted of made-up facts from each domain. In Experiments 1–3, students made JOLs predicting the likelihood that they would remember each item on the test. In Experiments 2 and 3, students also made confidence judgments in the accuracy of their response after answering each question on the final test. Prior knowledge was negatively related to the accuracy of students' JOLs, but unrelated to the accuracy of their confidence judgments. Exploratory analyses revealed that the relationship with JOLs was likely driven by high knowledge students giving relatively lower JOLs to items that they later remembered. Experiment 4 directly tested this possibility by having students make binary memory predictions about whether they would remember each item. Outcomes were consistent with the exploratory analyses. Thus, the negative relationship between prior knowledge and JOL accuracy appears to be driven by the greater tendency of high knowledge students, relative to low knowledge students, to remember items that they thought they would forget. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Item memory (e.g., recall or recognition of specific items) can reactively change when metacognitively monitored via judgments of learning (JOLs). The current research explores whether memory for inter-item relations (e.g., semantic relations among list items) is reactively influenced by JOLs. Participants in Experiment 1 studied rhyming word pairs for which the target words were semantically-related category exemplars. The word pairs were presented in a category-blocked order during the study phase to increase the saliency of inter-target relations. The results showed that making JOLs had little influence on free recall of the target words, but disrupted semantic clustering, reflecting negative reactivity in memory for inter-item relations. The pre-registered Experiment 2 successfully replicated the main findings of Experiment 1. Experiment 3 found that, when the word pairs were presented in a random order (i.e., not blocked by category, leading to minimal semantic clustering at recall) during the study phase, free recall of target words was enhanced by JOLs, reflecting positive reactivity in item memory. The dissociable reactivity effects on item and inter-item relational memory found in these experiments support an item-relational memory account which hypothesizes that when a given strategy enhances item-specific processing, it concurrently diverts encoding resources away from inter-item relational processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This experimental study examined whether the uninformative anchoring effect, which should be ignored, on judgments of learning (JOLs) was eliminated through the learning experience. In the experiments, the participants were asked to predict whether their performance on an upcoming test would be higher or lower than the anchor value (80% in the high anchor condition or 20% in the low anchor condition) before learning. Experiments 1a and 1b obtained consistent results, regardless of item difficulty. Specifically, the results showed that both the pre- and post-study JOLs in the high anchor condition were higher than those in the low anchor condition. Further, participants in the high (vs. low) anchor conditions made higher item-by-item JOLs during the learning process. This anchoring effect was maintained throughout the learning process. In contrast, there was no significant difference in recall performance between the two conditions. Experiment 3 demonstrated that the uninformative anchoring effect was not eliminated by obtaining test experience through a practice task before presenting anchoring information. These findings suggest that uninformative anchoring biases JOLs, but its effects are not eliminated by the learning experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emotional information pervades experiences in daily life. Numerous studies have established that emotional materials and information are easier to remember than neutral ones, a phenomenon known as the emotional salience effect on memory. In recent years, an emerging body of research has begun to explore the effect of emotion on metamemory. Preliminary findings show that participants offer higher judgments of learning (JOLs) to emotional than to neutral stimuli, a phenomenon termed the emotional salience effect on JOLs. The present meta-analysis integrated data from 1,887 participants, extracted from 17 qualifying studies, to examine the effects of emotion on JOLs and memory and to explore potential moderators of these effects. The results showed a medium-sized (g = 0.53 [0.41, 0.64]) emotional salience effect on JOLs, which was moderated by age and material type, as well as a small to medium (g = 0.38 [0.25, 0.51) emotional salience effect on memory, which was moderated by test format. These findings establish that emotionality is a salient cue in the theoretical framework of metamemory, and also provide some practical implications (e.g., in eyewitness testimony). However, more research is needed, especially employing high-powered pre-registered experiments, to address the signals of publication bias detected in this meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing judgments of learning (JOLs) at study tends to produce reactive effects on recall of cue–target word pairs. This reactivity generally produces memory improvements (i.e., positive reactivity) but only for related word pairs. For unrelated pairs, reactivity is typically not observed. Researchers have primarily investigated reactivity using study lists that contain at least two distinct pair types (i.e., related vs. unrelated pairs). Using these mixed lists, reactivity may occur because participants use distinguishing pair characteristics to inform their study goals (i.e., prioritizing related vs. unrelated pairs). The present study examined whether detection of separate pair types within mixed lists is a requisite for reactivity to occur. Experiment 1 replicated previous work showing that in mixed lists, JOLs produced positive reactivity on related pairs but are nonreactive on unrelated pairs. Importantly, Experiment 1 also found that these patterns extended to pure lists, in which only one pair type is presented. Experiments 2 and 3 then extended these patterns to backward and symmetrical paired associates. Finally, across experiments, reactivity patterns reported for JOLs extended to frequency of co-occurrence judgments across pair and list types. Our findings that reactivity patterns consistently emerge using pure lists supports a cue-strengthening account of reactivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trying to guess what the correct answer to a question might be can facilitate future learning of this answer when presented in the form of corrective feedback. One issue that determines the effectiveness of guessing as a learning strategy is the timing of the presentation of feedback: it can be presented either immediately after the guess, or after a delay. Whereas the timing of feedback is of little importance for complex materials such as trivia questions, previous research suggests that for simpler materials such as related word pairs guessing seems to benefit learning only when feedback is immediate. In order to test whether this always has to be the case, we conducted two experiments in which we increased the richness of study materials by superimposing the to-be-learned word pairs over unrelated context pictures. We then manipulated the match between contexts at study and at test (Experiment 1) and at the time of feedback delivery (Experiment 2). Contrary to previous studies showing no benefits of guessing with delayed feedback, our results show that learning related word pairs can benefit from guessing even when feedback is delayed. These benefits of guessing occur if participants are reminded via reinstated contexts of the guessing stage at the time of feedback delivery. Our results help constrain theories of guessing benefits and extend theories of reminding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) after studying can directly improve learning. This JOL reactivity has been shown for simple materials but has scarcely been investigated with educationally relevant materials such as expository texts. The few existing studies have not yet reported any consistent gains in text comprehension due to providing JOLs. In the present study, we hypothesized that increasing the chances of covert retrieval attempts when making JOLs after each of five to-be-studied text passages would produce comprehension benefits at 1 week compared to restudy. In a between-subjects design, we manipulated both whether participants (N = 210) were instructed to covertly retrieve the texts, and whether they made delayed target-absent JOLs. The results indicated that delayed, target-absent JOLs did not improve text comprehension after 1 week, regardless of whether prior instructions to engage in covert retrieval were provided. Based on the two-stage model of JOLs, we reasoned that participants' retrieval attempts during metacomprehension judgments were either insufficient (i.e., due to a quick familiarity assessment) or were ineffective (e.g., due to low retrieval success). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying is a useful tool for students to evaluate the status of their learning. Additionally, in associative learning contexts, JOLs can directly benefit learning when the to-be-learned information is related. One explanation for this reactive effect is that making JOLs strengthens the associative relationship, leading to enhanced memory performance when a test relies on that relationship (e.g., cued-recall tests). In the present research, we evaluated whether having students make interactive mental images—another strategy that can increase the strength of a cue–target relationship—impacts the reactive effect of JOLs on learning. Students studied word pairs that were related and unrelated. Half of the students were instructed to form a mental image of the words interacting, whereas the other half were not. Additionally, in each group half of the students made a JOL for each pair, whereas half did not. Following a short delay, students completed a cued-recall test. Consistent with prior research, students who made JOLs remembered more related word pairs than did students who did not. By contrast, students who made JOLs recalled fewer unrelated word pairs than did students who did not. Moreover, although students who formed interactive images demonstrated enhanced memory relative to students who did not, interactive imagery did not impact the reactive effect of JOLs. These outcomes are informative for existing theory of JOL reactivity. Specifically, JOLs may only benefit learning of associative information when it has a pre-existing semantic relationship (e.g., related word pairs) and not when that that relationship is created by the learner (e.g., by forming interactive images). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has demonstrated that metacognition accuracy is far from perfect. The accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs) is of critical importance in self-regulated learning. To explore what factors constrain JOL accuracy, the current study focused on mindfulness, which is intimately related to metacognition and anxiety. A total of 203 undergraduates (198 valid samples) were recruited to determine the relationships among five dimensions of dispositional mindfulness, test anxiety, and relative accuracy of JOLs. Results revealed that the interaction term for acting with awareness and test anxiety significantly predicted JOL accuracy. Further analyses indicated that for individuals with high test anxiety, but not for those with low test anxiety, acting with awareness positively predicted JOL accuracy. Considering that dispositional mindfulness is modifiable, these results help to inspire researchers to further explore whether mindfulness training can be used as a remedy to improve JOL accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Item memory and source memory are different aspects of episodic remembering. To investigate metamemory differences between them, the authors assessed systematic differences between predictions of item memory via Judgments of Learning (JOLs) and source memory via Judgments of Source (JOSs). Schemabased expectations affect JOLs and JOSs differently: Judgments are higher for expected source-item pairs (e.g., "nightstand in the bedroom") than unexpected pairs (e.g., "bed in the bathroom"), but this expectancy effect is stronger on JOSs than JOLs (Schaper et al., 2019b). The current study tested theoretical underpinnings of this difference. Due to semantic priming, JOLs should be influenced by the consistency between an item and any of the schemas activated at study. JOSs, however, should be influenced by the (in)consistency between an item and its actual source. In three experiments, source-item pairs varied in strength of consistency and inconsistency. Participants provided item-wise JOLs and JOSs. Regardless of an items' actual source, JOLs were higher the more consistent an item was with any of the source schemas, but only if that schema was activated by occurring as a source at study. JOLs were also biased by the actual source: JOLs were lower the more inconsistent an item was with its actual source. By contrast, JOSs were primarily influenced by an item's (in)consistency with its actual source (positively for consistency, negatively for inconsistency). Thus, participants metacognitively differentiated item memory and source memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making metamemory judgments reactively changes item memory itself. Here we report the first investigation of reactive influences of making judgments of learning (JOLs) on interitem relational memory-- specifically, temporal (serial) order memory. Experiment 1 found that making JOLs impaired order reconstruction. Experiment 2 observed minimal reactivity on free recall and negative reactivity on temporal clustering. Experiment 3 demonstrated a positive reactivity effect on recognition memory, and Experiment 4 detected dissociable effects of making JOLs on order reconstruction (negative) and forced-choice recognition (positive) by using the same participants and stimuli. Finally, a meta-analysis was conducted to explore reactivity effects on word list learning and to investigate whether test format moderates these effects. The results show a negative reactivity effect on interitem relational memory (order reconstruction), a modest positive effect on free recall, and a medium-to-large positive effect on recognition. Overall, these findings imply that even though making metacognitive judgments facilitates item-specific processing, it disrupts relational processing, supporting the item-order account of the reactivity effect on word list learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has observed that monitoring one's own learning modifies memory for some materials but not for others. Specifically, making judgments of learning (JOLs) while learning word pairs improves subsequent cued-recall memory performance for related word pairs but not for unrelated word pairs. Theories that have attempted to explain this pattern of results assume that people attend to and process cue-target relatedness during learning more when making JOLs than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. The present research directly tested this relatedness-processing assumption with unrelated and related word pairs as well as with hitherto unexamined materials: identical word pairs. In three experiments, participants studied word pairs while either making or not making JOLs. Results revealed that making JOLs improved memory for related word pairs as well as for identical word pairs, but not for unrelated word pairs. Importantly, in two of the experiments, participants were further asked to judge at test whether each cue appeared with an unrelated, related, or identical target before attempting to recall it. Results revealed that making JOLs improved the accuracy of these relatedness judgments independently from its effect on recall, thus providing direct evidence that people process cue-target relatedness when making JOLs more than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. These findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why judging one's own learning can modify memory and, more broadly, suggest that instructions to monitor learning can direct people's attention to information that is not or less processed otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies have found that making judgments of learning (JOLs) for verbal materials changes memory itself, a form of reactivity effect on memory. The current study explores the reactivity effect on visual (image) memory and tests the potential role of enhanced learning engagement in this effect. Experiment 1 employed object image pairs as stimuli and observed a positive reactivity effect on memory for visual details. Experiment 2 conceptually replicated this positive reactivity effect using pairs of scene images. Experiment 3 introduced mind wandering (MW) probes to measure participants' attentional state (learning engagement) and observed that making JOLs significantly reduced MW. More importantly, reduced MW mediated the reactivity effect. Lastly, Experiment 4 found that a manipulation that heightened learning motivation decreased the reactivity effect. Overall, the current study provides the first demonstration of the reactivity effect on visual memory, as well as support for the enhanced learning engagement explanation. Practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can sometimes modify subsequent memory performance, which is referred to as JOL reactivity. We evaluated two major theoretical explanations of JOL reactivity and used the dual-retrieval model to pinpoint the retrieval processes that are modified by JOLs. The changed-goal hypothesis assumes that JOLs highlight differences in item difficulty and switch learners' goals from mastering all items to focusing more on easier items at the expense of harder ones. It follows that JOLs should impair recall for harder items (negative reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis posits that JOLs strengthen the cues that inform JOLs. Thus, JOLs should enhance recall (positive reactivity) when memory tests are sensitive to those cues. In Experiment 1, we compared the reactivity of item-level JOLs between three types of word pairs that differ in difficulty: identical, strongly related, and weakly related pairs. In Experiment 2, we tested whether prestudy JOLs produced similar reactivity as immediate JOLs for items that differed in difficulty (related versus unrelated word pairs). In Experiment 3, we investigated whether JOL reactivity was moderated by relations among to-be-recalled items (related or unrelated), JOL type (item-level or list-level), and test format (associative or free recall). Across the three experiments, there was converging support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. Moreover, the dual-retrieval model revealed a consistent process-level pattern that positive JOL reactivity was always accompanied by enhanced direct retrieval of verbatim memories. Under some conditions, JOLs also enhanced reconstructive retrieval and familiarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The positivity effect for metacognitive judgments (judgments of learning, JOLs) of emotional words in recognition memory was shown in older adults, in contrast to younger adults, who typically displayed the emotional salience effect. This is compatible with the socioemotional selection theory, which suggests the presence of a positive stimulus bias in older adults' cognitive processes. This study examined whether the positivity effect and age-related differences could be extended to a picture study to determine whether the positivity effect in older adults is robust in the metacognitive domain. Younger and older adults studied negative, positive, and neutral pictures, followed by JOLs and then a recognition test that asked participants to judge whether the picture was shown in the studying stage or not. Age-related differences were found not only in recognition memory performance for emotional pictures but also in JOLs and their accuracy. Younger adults showed an emotional salience effect for both memory performance and JOLs. Older adults' JOLs showed a positivity effect, but their actual memory performance was influenced by emotion, and this inconsistency between metacognitive judgments and memory performance is a metacognitive illusion. These findings support the cross-material replicability of a positivity bias in older adults in the metacognitive domain and suggest that we should be cautioned about the detrimental effects of this metacognitive illusion in older adults. It illustrates an age difference in the effect of emotion on individual metacognitive monitoring ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students must identify concepts from lecture that should be included in their notes and determine how much information to include about each concept. We developed a two-phase model of note-taking and used multiple measures of note quality to evaluate the influence of an instructor's fluency on the quality of students' notes during each phase of note-taking. Students took notes while watching a fluent or a disfluent lecture, gave a judgment of learning (i.e., JOL), predicting future test performance, evaluated the instructor, and completed a test. Students failed to include many concepts in their notes. However, students tended to take complete notes for the concepts they chose to include. Instructor fluency did not impact note quality or test performance. Even so, students had faulty perceptions of their learning because instructor fluency impacted JOLs and instructor ratings. General Audience Summary: Students routinely take notes during class as a way of learning information from lectures. Despite the widespread practice of taking notes and relying on them to study for exams, the quality of students' notes (and their subsequent effects on learning) is unclear. This is partially because assessments of students' notes have rarely been considered in terms of the choices students make when taking notes. We proposed a two-phase model in which students' notes are evaluated for (a) identification of concepts from the lecture that should be included in their notes and (b) completeness of students' notes about the concepts that are included. Students viewed a video-recorded lecture and took notes over the content. Identification of concepts was low, with only about 46% of main ideas and supporting details included in students' notes. However, students tended to take complete and correct notes for those concepts by including about 86% of the important information about the main ideas and supporting details. The type of content from the lecture (main idea vs. supporting detail) had a larger impact on idea identification than on completeness. The style of lecture delivery (fluent or disfluent) did not impact any measure of note quality or test performance. However, students who watched the fluent lecture, compared to the disfluent lecture, believed that they had learned the content better and also rated the instructor as more effective. Thus, the quality of students' notes is multifaceted such that the decision to include concepts from a lecture can be measured separately from the completeness of those concepts. These results suggest that students have difficulty identifying concepts to include in notes, and instructional approaches that focus on building skills at identifying information from a lecture could be worthwhile for improving note quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People often listen to music while doing cognitive tasks. Yet, whether music harms or helps performance is still debated. Here, we assessed the objective and subjective effects of music with and without lyrics on four cognitive tasks. College students completed tasks of verbal and visual memory, reading comprehension, and arithmetic under three conditions: silence, instrumental music, and music with lyrics. Participants judged their learning during and after each condition. Music with lyrics hindered verbal memory, visual memory, and reading comprehension (d ≈ -0.3), whereas its negative effect (d = -.19) on arithmetic was not credible. Instrumental music (hip-hop lo-fi) did not credibly hinder or improve performance. Participants were aware of the detrimental impact of the lyrics. Instrumental music was, however, sometimes perceived as beneficial. Our results corroborate the general distracting effect of background music. However, faulty metacognition about music's interfering effect cannot fully explain why students often listen to music while studying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue—font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall.

Judgments of learning are most accurate when made at a delay from the initial encoding of the assessed material. A wealth of evidence suggests that this is because a delay encourages participants to base their predictions on cues retrieved from long-term memory, which are generally the most diagnostic of later memory performance. We investigated the hypothesis that different types of study techniques affect delayed JOL accuracy by influencing the accessibility of cues stored in long-term memory. In two experiments, we measured the delayed-JOL accuracy of participants who encoded semantically unrelated and weakly related word pairs through one of three study techniques: reading the pairs twice (study practice), generating keywords (elaborative encoding), or taking a cued-recall test with feedback (retrieval practice). We also measured the accessibility, utilization, and diagnostic quality of two long-term memory cues at the time of the delayed JOL: (a) retrieval of the target, and (b) noncriterial cues (retrieval of contextual details pertaining to the encoding of the target). We found that the accessibility of targets was positively associated with delayed-JOL accuracy. Further, we provide evidence that when study techniques enhance the accessibility of targets, they likewise enhance delayed-JOL accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do learners not choose ideal study strategies when learning? Past research suggests that learners frequently misinterpret the effort affiliated with efficient strategies as being indicative of poor learning. Expanding on past findings, we explored the integration of study habits into this model. We conducted two experiments where learners experienced two contrasting strategies—blocked and interleaved schedules—to learn to discriminate between images of bird families. After experiencing each strategy, learners rated each according to its perceived effort, learning, and familiarity. Next, learners were asked to choose which strategy they would use in the future. Mediation analyses revealed, for both experiments, that the more mentally effortful interleaving felt, the less learners felt they learned, and the less likely learners were to use it in future learning. Further, in this study, strategy familiarity predicted strategy choice, also mediated by learners' perceived learning. Additionally, Study 2 verified that, in contrast to learners' judgments, the less familiar interleaving schedule resulted in better learning. Consequently, learners are making ineffective learning judgments based on their perceptions of effort and familiarity and, therefore, do not make use of optimal study strategies in self-regulated learning decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated relationships between psychometric measures of memory, executive functions (EFs), and task-based measures of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) in individuals with and without Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), to study functional reorganization after TBI. We hypothesized that, in controls, accuracy of immediate JOLs would be associated with short-term memory and EFs (but not long-term memory, LTM), while accuracy of delayed JOLs would be associated primarily with LTM. We hypothesized that those with good recovery from TBI would demonstrate functional reorganization of the relationships between memory, EFs, and JOLs. Eighteen individuals with TBI and 18 matched controls completed eight neuropsychological tests of memory and EFs. They studied word-pairs, made immediate and delayed JOLs, and took a cued-recall test for the studied word-pairs. Stepwise regression and Lasso analyses generated a predictive model of JOL accuracy for each group. Accuracy of immediate JOLs in controls was predicted by short-term memory, inhibition, switching, and cognitive fluency, while accuracy of delayed JOLs was predicted by verbal recall. In individuals with TBI, inhibition predicted immediate JOL accuracy and switching predicted delayed JOL accuracy. Cognitive reorganization in those with good long-term recovery from TBI may account for the ability to make JOLs with accuracy similar to controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the production effect is well-established in undergraduates, limited research has examined this effect in children. The primary goal of the current study was to replicate the production effect in preschoolers. In Experiment 1, one group studied all items silently or aloud (pure lists) and another group studied half of the items silently and said half aloud (mixed lists). At recall, the production effect was present in mixed lists but not in pure lists. The results suggest that the effect in mixed lists was due to both a benefit for produced items and a cost to silent items. Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether preschoolers were aware of the benefits of production. The results were mixed and indicate that task difficulty may impact whether production benefits memory. When the metacognitive task was easier (Experiment 3), the production effect replicated. Preschoolers' judgments indicated they believe that production leads to better memory, but they were overconfident. The current results demonstrate that (1) young children can use production to improve memory when instructed, even before they spontaneously use it, (2) they believe production can benefit memory, and (3) task difficulty may account for discrepancies in prior work examining the production effect in children.