scholarly journals Retrieval Practice Facilitates Judgments of Learning Through Multiple Mechanisms: Simultaneous and Independent Contribution of Retrieval Confidence and Retrieval Fluency

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Chen ◽  
Mengting Zhang ◽  
Xiaonan L. Liu
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Independent Contribution ◽  
Retrieval Fluency

scholarly journals Retrieval Practice Facilitates Judgments of Learning Through Multiple Mechanisms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Chen ◽  
Mengting Zhang ◽  
Xiaonan L. Liu
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Practice Trial ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Practice Test ◽  
Mediation Analyses ◽  
Subsequent Performance ◽  
Practice Tests

AbstractPrior 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 later. The results of both experiments showed that the correlation between JoL ratings and the final accuracy was higher for trials practiced with testing. Moreover, using mediation analyses, we found that this high correspondence was only partially mediated by participants’ confidence in practice tests. More importantly, the reaction time of retrieval also significantly mediated the correspondence between JoLs and the final accuracy, suggesting that participants were able to correctly base their JoLs on multiple sources of information that is made available through retrieval practice. We conclude that practice testing benefits JoLs through multiple mechanisms.

The Influence of Retrieval Practice Versus Delayed Judgments of Learning on Memory

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K. (Uma) Tauber ◽  
John Dunlosky ◽  
Katherine A. Rawson
Keyword(s):  
Retention Interval ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Testing Effect ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Short Retention Interval ◽  
Subsequent Test ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
A Minor

Abstract. The positive effect of delayed retrieval practice on subsequent test performance is robust; by contrast, making delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) encourages covert retrieval but has a minor influence on final test performance. In three experiments, we experimentally established and explored this memory-metamemory paradox. After initial study of paired associates (e.g., husky – ram), participants either were explicitly tested (husky – ?) or made a JOL. In Experiment 1, we adopted the standard JOL method, using a short retention interval, whereas in Experiments 2 and 3, we used a common testing-effect method involving a longer retention interval. Delayed JOLs did not boost test performance, but explicit delayed tests boosted memory after a longer retention interval. As important, participants spent less time to make JOLs than to retrieve responses. These data indicate that differences in the dynamics of retrieval for practice tests versus delayed JOLs are responsible for the paradox.

When Predictions Create Reality: Judgments of Learning May Alter What They Are Intended to Assess

1992 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 315-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara A Spellman ◽  
Robert A Bjork
Keyword(s):  
Recall Test ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Current Experiment ◽  
Simple Assumption ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Subsequent Recall

Nelson and Dunlosky ( Psychological Science, July 1991) reported that subjects making judgments of learning (JOLs) can be extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall performance on a paired-associate task when the JOL task is delayed for a short while after study They argued that this result is surprising given the results of earlier research, as well as their own current experiment, indicating that JOLs are quite inaccurate when made immediately after study We note that the delayed-JOL procedure used by Nelson and Dunlosky invited covert recall practice (which was reported by their subjects) Retrieval practice is a well-known determinant of subsequent recall Accordingly, Nelson and Dunloskys findings can be explained by the simple assumption that people base delayed JOLs on an assessment of retrieval success which in turn influences their retrieval success on the subsequent recall test

Disfluent, But Fast

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 346-354
Author(s):  
Štěpán Bahník
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Processing Fluency ◽  
Retrieval Fluency ◽  
Decision Times

Abstract. Processing fluency, a metacognitive feeling of ease of cognitive processing, serves as a cue in various types of judgments. Processing fluency is sometimes evaluated by response times, with shorter response times indicating higher fluency. The present study examined existence of the opposite association; that is, it tested whether disfluency may lead to faster decision times when it serves as a strong cue in judgment. Retrieval fluency was manipulated in an experiment using previous presentation and phonological fluency by varying pronounceability of pseudowords. Participants liked easy-to-pronounce and previously presented words more. Importantly, their decisions were faster for hard-to-pronounce and easy-to-pronounce pseudowords than for pseudowords moderate in pronounceability. The results thus showed an inverted-U shaped relationship between fluency and decision times. The findings suggest that disfluency can lead to faster decision times and thus demonstrate the importance of separating different processes comprising judgment when response times are used as a measure of processing fluency.

Reactivity of Judgments of Learning in a Levels-of-Processing Paradigm

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eylul Tekin ◽  
Henry L. Roediger
Keyword(s):  
Target Word ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Levels Of Processing ◽  
Pleasantness Rating ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Counting Task ◽  
Reactive Effect ◽  
Target Words

Abstract. Recent studies have shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) are reactive measures in paired-associate learning paradigms. However, evidence is scarce concerning whether JOLs are reactive in other paradigms. In old/new recognition experiments, we investigated the reactivity effects of JOLs in a levels-of-processing (LOP) paradigm. In Experiments 1 and 2, for each word, subjects saw a yes/no orienting question followed by the target word and a response. Then, they either did or did not make a JOL. The yes/no questions were about target words’ appearances, rhyming properties, or category memberships. In Experiment 3, for each word, subjects gave a pleasantness rating or counted the letter “e ”. Our results revealed that JOLs enhanced recognition across all orienting tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, and for the e-counting task in Experiment 3. This reactive effect was salient for shallow tasks, attenuating – but not eliminating – the LOP effect after making JOLs. We conclude that JOLs are reactive in LOP paradigms and subjects encode words more effectively when providing JOLs.

Learning From (Test) Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan E. Mitton ◽  
Chris M. Fiacconi
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Visual Images ◽  
Memory Tests ◽  
Recognition Memory Performance ◽  
Study Test ◽  
Explicit Feedback

Abstract. To date there has been relatively little research within the domain of metamemory that examines how individuals monitor their performance during memory tests, and whether the outcome of such monitoring informs subsequent memory predictions for novel items. In the current study, we sought to determine whether spontaneous monitoring of test performance can in fact help individuals better appreciate their memory abilities, and in turn shape future judgments of learning (JOLs). Specifically, in two experiments we examined recognition memory for visual images across three study-test cycles, each of which contained novel images. We found that across cycles, participants’ JOLs did in fact increase, reflecting metacognitive sensitivity to near-perfect levels of recognition memory performance. This finding suggests that individuals can and do monitor their test performance in the absence of explicit feedback, and further underscores the important role that test experience can play in shaping metacognitive evaluations of learning and remembering.

Experience Matters

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro S. Mendes ◽  
Karlos Luna ◽  
Pedro B. Albuquerque
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Direct Experience ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Actual Frequency ◽  
Actual Word ◽  
High Frequency Words

Abstract. The present study tested if word frequency effects on judgments of learning (JOLs) are exclusively due to beliefs or if the direct experience with the items also plays a role. Across four experiments, participants read prompts about the frequency of the words (high/low), which could be congruent/incongruent with the words’ actual frequency. They made pre-study JOLs (except Experiment 1b), immediate JOLs, and completed a recall test. If experience drives the effect, JOLs should be based on actual word frequency rather than the prompts. Results showed higher pre-study JOLs for prompts of high frequency, but higher immediate JOLs for high-frequency words regardless of the prompt, suggesting an effect of direct experience with the words. In Experiments 2 and 3, we manipulated participants’ beliefs, finding a small effect of beliefs on JOLs. We conclude that, regarding word frequency, direct experience with the items seems more relevant than beliefs when making immediate JOLs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document