Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy

For effective self-regulated study of expository texts, it is crucial that learners can accurately monitor their understanding of cause-and-effect relations. This study aimed to improve adolescents' monitoring accuracy using a diagram completion task. Participants read six texts, predicted performance, selected texts for restudy, and were tested for comprehension. Three groups were compared, in which learners either completed causal diagrams immediately after reading, completed them after a delay, or received no-diagram control instructions. Accuracy of predictions of performance was highest for learning of causal relations following delayed diagram completion. Completing delayed diagrams focused learners specifically on their learning of causal relations, so this task did not improve monitoring of learning of factual information. When selecting texts for restudy, the participants followed their predictions of performance to the same degree, regardless of monitoring accuracy. Fine-grained analyses also showed that, when completing delayed diagrams, learners based judgments on diagnostic cues that indicated actual understanding of connections between events in the text. Most important, delayed diagram completion can improve adolescents' ability to monitor their learning of cause-and-effect relations.     

Metacognitive monitoring during criterion learning: When and why are judgments accurate?

Research on metacognitive judgment accuracy during retrieval practice has increased in recent years. However, prior work had not systematically evaluated item-level judgment accuracy and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy in a criterion-learning paradigm (in which items are practiced until correctly recalled during encoding). Understanding these relationships during criterion learning has important theoretical implications for self-regulated learning frameworks, and also has applied implications for student learning: If the factors that influence metacognitive judgments are not predictive of subsequent test performance, students may make poor decisions during self-regulated learning. In the present experiments, participants engaged in test–restudy practice until items were recalled correctly. Once a given item reached criterion, participants made an immediate or delayed judgment of learning (JOL) for the item. A final cued-recall test occurred 30 min later. We examined judgment accuracy (the relationship between JOLs and test performance) and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy by evaluating cue utilization (the relationship between cues and JOLs) and cue diagnosticity (the relationship between cues and test performance). Immediate JOLs were only modestly related to subsequent test performance, and further analyses revealed that the cues related to JOLs were only weakly predictive of test accuracy. However, delaying JOLs improved both the accuracy of the JOLs and the diagnosticity of the cues that influenced judgments.     

Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control

Prior work has demonstrated that the perceptual features of visually presented stimuli can have a strong influence on predictions of memory performance, even when those features are unrelated to recall (Rhodes & Castel, 2008). The present study examined whether this finding would hold in an auditory domain and influence study-choice allocation. Participants listened to words that varied in volume, made judgments of learning (JOLs) for each item, and were then administered a test of free recall. In Experiment 1, we showed that JOLs were influenced by volume, with loud words given higher JOLs than quiet words, and that volume had no influence on recall, illustrating a metacognitive illusion based on auditory information. In Experiment 2, we extended these findings to control processes and showed that participants were more likely to choose to restudy quiet words than loud words. These findings indicate that highly accessible auditory information is integrated into JOLs and restudy choices, even when this information does not influence actual memory performance.     

Costs and benefits of dropout schedules of test–restudy practice: Implications for student learning

Almost all previous studies examining the benefits of testing for promoting student learning have used fixed schedules of practice. However, students more often report utilizing a dropout schedule of practice, in which items are dropped from practice once they are known. Two experiments investigated the costs and benefits of utilizing a dropout schedule of test–restudy practice. Participants learned Swahili–English paired associates using a dropout schedule or a fixed schedule. In the dropout schedule, items received test–restudy practice until each item was correctly recalled once. In the fixed schedule, all items received three tests–restudy practice trials regardless of whether they were correctly recalled, as in previous research. Experiment 2 also included a second learning session. In both experiments, a final cued recall test was administered several days later. Results indicated that the benefits of the dropout schedule (fewer practice trials used overall and all items correctly recalled once during practice) need to be considered in light of the costs (lower levels of final test performance). Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper

Despite immense technological advances, learners still prefer studying text from printed hardcopy rather than from computer screens. Subjective and objective differences between on-screen and on-paper learning were examined in terms of a set of cognitive and metacognitive components, comprising a Metacognitive Learning Regulation Profile (MLRP) for each study media. Participants studied expository texts of 1000-1200 words in one of the two media and for each text they provided metacognitive prediction-of-performance judgments with respect to a subsequent multiple-choice test. Under fixed study time (Experiment 1), test performance did not differ between the two media, but when study time was self-regulated (Experiment 2) worse performance was observed on screen than on paper. The results suggest that the primary differences between the two study media are not cognitive but rather metacognitive--less accurate prediction of performance and more erratic study-time regulation on screen than on paper. More generally, this study highlights the contribution of metacognitive regulatory processes to learning and demonstrates the potential of the MLRP methodology for revealing the source of subjective and objective differences in study performance among study conditions.     

Metacognitive illusions can be reduced by monitoring recollection during study

Prior work has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) are prone to an auditory metacognitive illusion such that loud words are given higher predictions than quiet words despite no differences in recall as a function of auditory intensity. The current study investigated whether judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKs)—judgments that focus participants on whether or not recollective details will be remembered—are less susceptible to such an illusion. In Experiment 1, participants studied single words, making item-by-item JOLs or JORKs immediately after study. Indeed, although increased volume elevated judgement magnitude for both JOLs and JORKs, the effect was significantly attenuated when JORKs were elicited. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and additionally demonstrated that participants making JORKs were less likely than participants making JOLs to choose to restudy quiet words relative to loud words. Taken together, these results suggest that JORKs are impacted less—in terms of both metacognitive monitoring and control—by irrelevant perceptual information than JOLs. More generally, these data support the contention that metacognitive illusions can be attenuated by simply changing the way metacognitive judgments are solicited, an important finding given that subjective experiences guide self-regulated learning.     

汉字的无线索回忆再认效应:重复学习和重复测验的作用

采用无线索回忆再认范式,对基于熟悉性的汉字语义特征再认进行了探索,考察了重复学习和重复测验对汉字语义特征的无线索回忆再认效应(RWCR效应)的影响。实验1采用即时测验,实验2采用延时测验,结果发现:(1)无论即时还是延时测验,汉字语义特征的再认均存在RWCR效应。(2)在即时测验时,重复学习对熟悉性有显著影响,重复测验对熟悉性没有影响;重复学习和重复测验均提高回想成绩,但二者无差异。(3)在延时测验时,重复学习组和重复测验组的熟悉性评分均下降,但前者下降快于后者;重复测验组回想的遗忘率较低,重复学习组回想的遗忘率较高。上述结果说明,汉字的语义特征存在稳定的RWCR效应,且重复学习主要影响熟悉性,重复测验主要影响回想。进一步证明了再认记忆的双加工理论。     

阅读中的元理解监测与元理解调控

采用“阅读－关键词处理－元理解监测－测验1－选择文章重读－测验2”的流程, 探讨元理解监测对元理解调控与阅读理解成绩的影响。结果显示, 延迟写关键词相对于即时写和不写关键词更利于监测精 确性的提高; 延迟关键词组借助精确的监测能做出有效的元理解调控, 选出测验1中得分低的文章重读, 并在测验2中有较好表现, 而其他两组只能选出其认为难的、而非得分低的文章重读, 在测验2中表现不 佳。元理解监测的精确性影响元理解调控的有效性, 进而影响阅读理解成绩。     

Do people use category-learning judgments to regulate their learning of natural categories?

Although research has established that people can accurately judge how well they have learned categories, no research has examined whether people use their category-learning judgments (CLJs) to regulate their restudy of natural categories. Thus, in five experiments we investigated the relationship between people’s CLJs and selections of categories for restudy. Participants first attempted to learn natural categories (bird families; e.g., finches, grosbeaks, and warblers) so that they could categorize new exemplars on a final test. After this initial study phase, participants made a CLJ for each category and then selected a subset of the categories for restudy. Across experiments, we also manipulated several variables (e.g., selecting either three or nine categories, or obtaining 30% vs. 80% performance on the final test) that were expected to influence restudy selections. However, the manipulations typically had minimal impact. More important, in all experiments we found an unexpected outcome: Some participants tended to select the categories they judged to be most well learned for restudy, and others tended to select those judged to be least well learned. We discovered these qualitative differences in the use of CLJs to make restudy selections by using post-hoc analyses in Experiments 1a and 1b, and hence we sought to (a) replicate them in Experiments 2, 3, and 4 and (b) provide preliminary evidence regarding factors that can (vs. cannot) account for them. Most important, evidence across all of the experiments supported the conclusion that people do use their CLJs to select categories for restudy.     

Domain familiarity as a cue for judgments of learning

Students differ in how much they already know about topics within and across their courses. Few studies, however, have examined the relationship between participants’ levels of knowledge across topics (i.e., their “domain familiarity”) and their learning of information from those topics, their study choices related to those topics, and their subjective self-assessments of their learning about the topics. As such, in two studies we had participants (Study 1, college students; Study 2, Mturk workers) rank their domain familiarity for several to-be-studied domains (e.g., chemistry, history), rate their efficacy and interest in those domains, study and make judgments of learning (JOLs) for facts from each domain, and finally complete a short-answer test over those facts. Participants’ efficacy and interest ratings for the topics were linearly related to their topic rankings, as were their recall of and JOLs for facts from those domains. Although the JOLs were consistently overconfident, they were more overconfident for better-known than for lesser-known topics. Participants’ study times were not related to their topic rankings (Studies 1 and 2), but participants did use domain familiarity to strategically decide which domains to restudy before the test (Study 2). Participants typically chose to restudy their least-familiar topics, but chose to restudy their best-known topic under extremely limited restudy conditions. As a whole, the results suggest that participants effectively use their domain familiarity as a basis for their JOLs and restudy choices, but to some extent overuse this factor to assess their learning, and underuse it to guide initial study.     

Filling in the gaps: using testing and restudy to promote associative learning

Although testing has been shown to potentiate subsequent learning [Izawa, C. (1966). Reinforcement-test sequences in paired-associate learning. Psychological Reports, 18, 879–919.], the mechanisms that influence this effect are not entirely understood. The present research examined the relationship between associative binding and test-potentiation effects. We hypothesised that test-potentiation effects would be most pronounced when participants could easily extract the relationship among word groupings. Towards that end, we compared three-word groupings, or triads, that were either semantically related or unrelated. Participants engaged in repeated study, repeated testing, or engaged in interpolated study and test prior to a final test. Final test performance was greatest for participants who engaged in interpolated study and test on related triads. The results support three primary conclusions: (1) testing aids in associative binding; (2) associative binding is facilitated by retrieval practice and restudy pairings; and (3) pre-existing associations facilitate test-potentiation effects.     

Recollections of things schematic: room schemas revisited

In 2 experiments, the authors examined the effects of schemas on the subjective experience of remembering. Participants entered a room that was set up to look like a graduate student's office under intentional or incidental learning conditions. They later took a recognition memory test that included making remember-know judgments. In Experiment 1, they were tested during the same session; in Experiment 2 they were tested either during the same session or after a 48-hr delay. Consistent with the authors' predictions, memory for atypical objects was especially likely to be experienced in the remember sense. In addition, false remember judgments rose dramatically after the 48-hr delay, especially for participants in the incidental learning condition. Results are discussed in terms of schema theory, fuzzy-trace theory, and the distinctiveness heuristic.     

UTILIZATION OF METACOGNITIVE JUDGMENTS IN THE ALLOCATION OF STUDY DURING MULTITRIAL LEARNING

Abstract— We contrasted several ways that an individual's judgments of learning (JOLs) can be utilized when allocating additional study ("restudy") during the learning of Swahilt-English translation equivalents The findings demonstrate how metacognitive monitoring can be utilized to benefit multitrial learning Computer-controlled allocation of restudy based on people's JOLs was equivalent to most people's own allocation of restudy (indicating that the computer algorithm can provide a sufficient account of people's allocation of restudy) and was more effective than a computer-controlled allocation based on normative performance (indicating that people's metacognitive monitoring of idiosyncratic knowledge has functional utility in causal chains for learning)     

样例多样性和流畅性信念对类别学习判断的影响

目的:通过三个实验考查样例特征、流畅性和信念对类别学习及其元认知判断的影响。方法:实验1采用2(样例特征)×2(测试类型)的组内设计以检验样例特征的作用; 实验2采用2(样例特征)×2(测试类型)×2(流畅性)的组内设计以检验流畅性的作用; 实验3采用2(样例特征)×2(测试类型)×2(流畅性信念)的混合设计以检验信念对类别学习判断的作用。结果表明:样例特征影响学习成绩、类别学习判断和流畅感; 流畅性不会影响类别学习判断; 原理解释能够有效建立“关于流畅性的信念”,且“关于流畅性的信念”对类别学习判断起作用。即样例多样性和流畅性信念对类别学习判断起作用,支持信念假说。     

Diminished testing benefits in young adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Memory retrieval has been shown to enhance the long-term retention of tested material; however, recent research suggests that limiting attention during retrieval can decrease the benefits of testing memory. The present study examined whether testing benefits are reduced in young adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). College students with and without ADHD read three short prose passages, each followed by a free recall test, a restudy period or a distractor task. Two days later participants recalled the passages. Although participants without ADHD did not show a significant benefit of testing over restudying, testing did produce recall benefits relative to not taking a test. These testing benefits were diminished in participants with ADHD, who did not show any advantage of testing over either restudying or no test. The absence of testing benefits in the ADHD group is likely due in part to decreased recall on the initial test. These findings have implications for improving educational practices among individuals with ADHD and also speak to the need to examine individual differences in the effectiveness of testing as a learning strategy.     

Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention

Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later retention, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. We studied this effect with educationally relevant materials and investigated whether testing facilitates learning only because tests offer an opportunity to restudy material. In two experiments, students studied prose passages and took one or three immediate free-recall tests, without feedback, or restudied the material the same number of times as the students who received tests. Students then took a final retention test 5 min, 2 days, or 1 week later. When the final test was given after 5 min, repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing. However, on the delayed tests, prior testing produced substantially greater retention than studying, even though repeated studying increased students' confidence in their ability to remember the material. Testing is a powerful means of improving learning, not just assessing it.     

Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages

The present research assessed the potential effects of expecting to teach on learning. In two experiments, participants studied passages either in preparation for a later test or in preparation for teaching the passage to another student who would then be tested. In reality, all participants were tested, and no one actually engaged in teaching. Participants expecting to teach produced more complete and better organized free recall of the passage (Experiment 1) and, in general, correctly answered more questions about the passage than did participants expecting a test (Experiment 1), particularly questions covering main points (Experiment 2), consistent with their having engaged in more effective learning strategies. Instilling an expectation to teach thus seems to be a simple, inexpensive intervention with the potential to increase learning efficiency at home and in the classroom.     

Recognition and recall performance both benefit from the production effect with content-specific information

Two experiments assessed how reading aloud versus reading silently would benefit recognition and recall performance of content-specific vocabulary (i.e., the production effect). Participants studied 30 terms from an American history curriculum by reading half of the vocabulary aloud, while the remaining words were read silently. After a brief distractor task, they completed a recognition memory test (Experiment 1) or a recall memory test (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed a benefit for reading aloud. Recognition performance showed a 22% performance advantage, while recall performance showed a smaller advantage for the words read aloud (8% benefit). The vast majority of participants in both experiments showed a memory advantage for those words that were studied aloud versus those read silently (88% of participants in Experiment 1 and 67% of individuals in Experiment 2). Implications for educational settings are considered.

Attempts to improve student performance have been manifested in various forms; however, recent developments in cognitive psychology have a great deal to offer educators and students regarding instruction and learning. Studies suggest that educators and cognitive psychologists ought to approach educational research as an interdisciplinary endeavor. Through this collaborative relationship, those who teach could improve their understanding of the science of learning, while researchers extend theoretical research to practical, classroom applications for the benefit of students and teachers.     

Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format

The act of retrieving information modifies memory in critical ways. In particular, testing-effect studies have demonstrated that retrieval practice (compared to restudy or to no testing) benefits long-term retention and protects from retroactive interference. Although such testing effects have previously been demonstrated in both between- and within-subjects manipulations of retrieval practice, it is less clear whether one or the other testing format is most beneficial on a final test. In two paired-associate learning experiments conducted under typical testing-effect conditions, we manipulated restudy and test trials using either blocked or mixed practice conditions while equating other factors. Retrieval-practice and restudy trials were presented either separately in different blocks (blocked practice) or randomly intermixed (mixed practice). In Experiment 1, recall was assessed after short and long delay intervals; in Experiment 2, the final memory test occurred after a short delay, but with or without an interfering activity before the final test. In both experiments, typical testing effects emerged, and critically, they were found to be unaffected by practice format. These results support the conclusion that testing effects are robust and emerge to equal extents in both blocked and mixed designs. The generality of testing effects further encourages the application of retrieval practice as a memory enhancer in a variety of contexts, including education.