Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control

Three experiments explored the contribution of framing effects on metamemory judgments. In Experiment 1, participants studied word pairs. After each presentation, they made an immediate judgment of learning (JOL), framed in terms of either remembering or forgetting. In the remember frame, participants made judgments about how likely it was that they would remember each pair on the upcoming test. In the forget frame, participants made judgments about how likely it was that they would forget each pair. Confidence differed as a result of the frame. Forget frame JOLs, equated to the remember frame JOL scale by a 1-judgment conversion, were lower and demonstrated a smaller overconfidence bias than did remember frame JOLs. When judgments were made at a delay, framing effects did not occur. In Experiment 2, people chose to restudy more items when choices were made within a forget frame. In Experiment 3, people studied Spanish—English vocabulary pairs ranging in difficulty. The framing effect was replicated with judgments and choices. Moreover, forget frame participants included more easy and medium items to restudy. These results demonstrated the important consequences of framing effects on assessment and control of study.     

Effects of Problem Solving after Worked Example Study on Primary School Children's Monitoring Accuracy

Research on expository text has shown that the accuracy of students' judgments of learning (JOLs) can be improved by instructional interventions that allow students to test their knowledge of the text. The present study extends this research, investigating whether allowing students to test the knowledge they acquired from studying a worked example by means of solving an identical problem, either immediately or delayed, would enhance JOL accuracy. Fifth grade children (i) gave an immediate JOL, (ii) a delayed JOL, (iii) solved a problem immediately and then gave a JOL, (iv) solved a problem immediately and gave a delayed JOL, or (v) solved a problem at a delay and then gave a JOL. Results show that problem solving after example study improved children's JOL accuracy (i.e., overestimation decreased). However, no differences in the accuracy of restudy indications were found. Results are discussed in relation to cue utilization when making JOLs. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice

Three experiments investigated whether study choice was directly related to judgments of learning (JOLs) by examining people’s choices in cases in which JOLs were dissociated from recall. In Experiment 1, items were given either three repetitions or one repetition on Trial 1. Items given three repetitions received one on Trial 2, and those given one repetition received three on Trial 2—equating performance at the end of Trial 2, but yielding different immediate Trial 2 JOLs. Study choice followed the “illusory” JOLs. A delayed JOL condition in Experiment 2 did not show this JOL bias and neither did study choice. Finally, using a paradigm (Koriat & Bjork, 2005) in which similar JOLs are given to forward and backward associative pairs, despite much worse performance on the backward pairs, study choice again followed the mistaken JOLs. We concluded that JOLs—what people believe they know—directly influence people’s study choices.     

Is retrieval the key? Metamemory judgment and testing as learning strategies

Re-reading is the most common learning strategy, albeit not a very efficient one. Testing is highly efficient, but not perceived by students as a learning strategy. Prospective judgment-of-learning (JOL) reflect the learner's impression of subsequently being able to retrieve the ongoing learning in a cued-recall task. Estimating JOL involves attempting to retrieve the information, as in testing. The few studies that have explored the potential mnemonic benefit of JOL have yielded contradictory results. Our aim was to compare JOL and testing with re-study and to examine the impact of these strategies according to the relative difficulty of the material (cue-target association strength) in two experiments. After a first encoding phase, participants re-studied, provided JOL, or took a test. Forty-eight hours later, they participated in a final cued-recall test, during which their confidence level judgments were collected. The main result was that delayed JOL behaved in the same way as testing, and both yielded better performances than re-study when material was of moderate difficulty. The easy or very difficult material revealed no differences between these strategies. JOL is proposed as an alternative to testing when faced with difficult material.     

Using a multidimensional scaling approach to investigate the underlying basis of ease of learning judgments

Jönsson, F. U. & Lindström, B. R. (2009) Using a multidimensional scaling approach to investigate the underlying basis of ease of learning judgments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 103–108. Before studying a material it is of strategic importance to first assess its difficulty, so called Ease of Learning (EOL) judgments. A multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure was used to investigate the underlying basis of EOL judgments for 24 nouns, which to the authors’ knowledge has not been done before. In addition, Judgments of Learning (JOL) followed by a free recall test was performed. The MDS analysis indicated that EOL judgments for the nouns are based on multiple cues (dimensions), namely word length, frequency, and concreteness. Moreover, the concreteness values of the nouns, as judged by an independent group, were correlated with both the JOLs and the concreteness dimension from the MDS analysis. This indicates that EOLs and JOLs for single words are based, to some extent, on the same cues.     

Emotional Salience and the Isolation Effect

When a homogeneous list contains a few items that are different from the rest of the items in the list, these isolated items show enhanced recall compared to the same items in a list where these items are not isolated. This phenomenon, known as the isolation effect, has been explained on the basis of isolated items eliciting salience. In this experiment, negative pictures and neutral pictures were isolated at the early and late part of the list. The salience explanation would predict that participants would pay more attention to these isolated items resulting in higher judgments of learning (JOL) ratings compared to the same items in the control list. Negative pictures showed the isolation effect for both early and late isolation; however, for early isolation, JOL was similar between the isolated and non-isolated pictures indicating that the emotional isolation effect does not require emotional salience.     

学习判断准确性的研究方法

学习判断是元认知判断的一种重要形式,是指被试对其后测成绩的预测.准确性是学习判断研究的重要问题.学习判断准确性分为绝对准确性和相对准确性.本文重点介绍相对准确性的传统研究方法和修正方法,即预测前回忆和监测法.在比较两种相对准确性的研究方法在数据的收集和分析上的差别,提出传统方法在数据收集过程中只能通过假设推断学习判断判断前的提取过程,修正方法在数据收集时,在学习判断前插入一个回忆阶段,可以监测学习判断判断前的提取过程.应用修正方法使研究者既可分解总的准确性,又可通过加权平均数的算法合成总的准确性.因此该方法有助于研究者更加深入、精确地研究学习判断以及其他元认知判断问题.     

Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies

We tested a computer-based procedure for assessing reader strategies that was based on verbal protocols that utilized latent semantic analysis (LSA). Students were given self-explanation—reading training (SERT), which teaches strategies that facilitate self-explanation during reading, such as elaboration based on world knowledge and bridging between text sentences. During a computerized version of SERT practice, students read texts and typed self-explanations into a computer after each sentence. The use of SERT strategies during this practice was assessed by determining the extent to which students used the information in the current sentence versus the prior text or world knowledge in their self-explanations. This assessment was made on the basis of human judgments and LSA. Both human judgments and LSA were remarkably similar and indicated that students who were not complying with SERT tended to paraphrase the text sentences, whereas students who were compliant with SERT tended to explain the sentences in terms of what they knew about the world and of information provided in the prior text context. The similarity between human judgments and LSA indicates that LSA will be useful in accounting for reading strategies in a Web-based version of SERT.     

JUDGMENTS OF LEARNING AT DELAYS:

Abstract— Nelson and Dunlosky (1991) found that judgment-of-leaning (JOL) accuracy (measured using G) was nearly perfect if the JOL was made several minutes after study (the delayed-JOL effect ). However, over time, the distribution of judgments changed radically. When JOLs were made immediately, subjects typically used the middle of the scale, after a delay, more than 50% of judgments were made using the ends of the scale (Dunlosky & Nelson, 1994, Experiment 1). We replicated the delayed-JOL effect and found a similar rating shift. Is the delayed-JOL effect an artifact produced by this shift, or does it reflect true metamemory improvement? Monte Carlo simulations allowed us to separate these effects. Shifting judgments to ends of the scale did inflate JOL accuracy somewhat. The bulk of the delayed-JOL effect, however, resulted form increases in calibration. We conclude that the delayed-JOL effect reflects true metamemory improvement.     

学习和测验经验对学习判断中UWP效应的影响

针对重复学习判断中出现的练习伴随低估效应（UWP效应）,目前存在多种理论解释。本研究基于过去测验记忆假说,在学习阶段和测验阶段引入两种判断：学习判断准确性的判断和回溯性信心判断,通过两个实验考察学习经验和测验经验对UWP效应的影响。结果发现：在学习判断中学习判断准确性的判断和回溯性信心判断均消除了UWP效应,间接证明了学习和测验经验均影响到UWP效应的出现。     

The contributions of anchoring and past-test performance to the underconfidence-with-practice effect

In the underconfidence-with-practice effect, people's judgments of learning (JOLs) typically underestimate memory performance across multiple study-test phases. Whereas the past-test hypothesis suggests that this underconfidence stems from participants' reliance on earlier test performance to make subsequent JOLs (despite new learning), the anchoring hypothesis suggests that the underconfidence stems from participants' reliance on a fixed psychological anchor point low on the JOL scale to make their JOLs. To contrast the predictions of these hypotheses, we had college students study, make JOLs, and test over several dozen paired-associate items across two study-test phases. We parametrically manipulated the presence or absence of testing and judging within participants during Phase 1. Contrary to the past-test hypothesis, items tested during Phase 1 demonstrated less underconfidence during Phase 2 than did nontested items. Furthermore, participants did not increase JOLs from Phase 1 to Phase 2 for items that they had not recalled or for items that had not been tested at all, suggesting that the underconfidence stemmed largely from participants' overreliance on a psychological anchor point to make their JOLs. Past test performance, however, seems to be a major cue that participants use to adjust their JOLs away from the anchor, reducing underconfidence. This was most evident when we used a between-participants manipulation (Exp. 2) to cause our participants to anchor their JOLs either high or low on the JOL scale, producing differential underconfidence independent of any adjustment. Taken together, these results support the anchoring hypothesis over the past-test hypothesis for explaining underconfidence with practice.     

内外部线索对不同类型学习判断的影响

以Koriat的线索模型理论为基础,在前人研究的基础上探讨两种学习判断的差异,并进一步考察内外部线索对即时学习判断和延迟学习判断的不同影响。研究结果发现：（1）延迟学习判断的相对准确性显著高于即时学习判断,验证了延迟学习判断效应的存在。（2）不同的线索类型对学习判断的影响不同,学习判断对内部线索更加敏感。（3）相同的线索在不同的学习判断条件下影响不同。（4）即时学习判断条件下的JOL值分布呈现逐渐上升的趋势;延迟学习判断条件下的JOL值分布呈“U”型曲线。     

学会感判断相对精确性的研究范式与指标

学会感削断是个体对正在学或刚学过的材料的学习程度的判断,它是元认知监控的重要形式.本文介绍了学会感判断研究的LJR范式与PRAM范式,分析了学会感判断相对精确性指标Gamma系数及其变式的应用与优缺点,最后针对指标的使用和发展提出了建议.     

What is the Basis for Self-assessment of Comprehension when Reading Mathematical Expository Texts?

The purpose of this study was to characterize students’ self-assessments when reading mathematical texts, in particular regarding what students use as a basis for evaluations of their own reading comprehension. A total of 91 students read two mathematical texts, and for each text, they performed a self-assessment of their comprehension and completed a test of reading comprehension. Students’ self-assessments were to a lesser degree based on their comprehension of the specific text read but based more on prior experiences. However, the study also produced different results for different types of texts and for different components (or levels) of reading comprehension.     

理解评估与成绩预测：两种不同的元理解监测形式

探讨理解评估与成绩预测与各种强化元理解监测线索的认知任务的关系。结果发现,理解评估与成绩预测的判断值偏离标准测验成绩的程度受监测线索强化方式的调节;主动强化监测线索比被动强化更能提高理解评估和成绩预测的精确性;精确的理解评估或成绩预测所需的线索不同,利用同一线索评估理解或预测成绩,其精确性也不同。这一结果挑战了元理解监测的一维观,表明理解评估与成绩预测涵盖了元理解监测不同方面的心理特征     

情绪状态对学习判断的影响及其机制

两个实验用于研究情绪对学习判断的影响及其机制,结果表明：（1）首轮回忆测验成绩可以通过影响个体的情绪状态来影响后继的学习判断以及回忆测验和学习判断的绝对准确性。（2）情绪可以影响学习判断和个体对学习内容的加工深度,加工深度的提高有利于个体的回忆成绩,学习判断和回忆成绩共同影响着学习判断的准确性。     

Are feeling-of-knowing and judgment-of-learning different? Evidence from older adults

This study aims to assess age differences between Judgments-of-learning (JOLs) and Feeling-of-knowing (FOKs) as they are typically studied. The novel contribution of the present study is a comparison between these two metacognitive judgments in a within subject design. Young and older adults were tested on their JOL accuracy and were asked to predict future recall during learning. All participants were also asked to predict future recognition of unrecalled items (FOK judgments). Results showed that although older adults had similar low levels of memory performance in the JOL task and in the FOK task, metacognitive impairments were only found on the resolution of FOKs. Furthermore, an analysis of covariance showed that age differences on memory performance explained the age effect observed on the FOK, thus supporting the memory constraint hypothesis (Hertzog et al., 2010). Results are discussed in relation to contemporary models of memory.     

The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance,new learning,and forgetting

When people judge their learning of items across study–test trials, their accuracy in discriminating between learned and unlearned items improves on the second trial. We examined the source of this improvement by estimating the contribution of three factors—memory for past test performance (MPT), new learning, and forgetting—to accuracy on trial 2. In Experiment 1, during an initial trial, participants studied paired associates, made a judgment of learning (JOL) for each one, and were tested. During the second trial, we manipulated two variables: when the JOL was made (either immediately before or after studying an item) and whether participants were told the outcome of the initial recall attempt on trial 1. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was used with a 1-week retention interval between study and test on trial 2. In both experiments, JOL resolution was higher on trial 2 than on trial 1. Fine-grained analyses of JOL magnitude and decomposition of resolution supported several conclusions. First, MPT contributed the most to boosts in JOL magnitude and improvements in resolution across trials. Second, JOLs and subsequent resolution were sensitive to new learning and forgetting, but only when participants’ judgments were made after study. Thus, JOLs appear to integrate information from multiple factors, and these factors jointly contribute to JOL resolution.