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 the past to predict the future

This research addressed three issues. First, we examined whether retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) and judgments of learning (JOLs) assess memory differently. Second, we examined the relative accuracy of JOLs and RCJs at predicting future recall performance. Third, we examined whether making JOLs improves subsequent recall better than making RCJs or making no metacognitive judgment. Results suggest that RCJs and JOLs are both based on retrievability, but that participants use their memory differently when making JOLs. RCJs were more accurate than JOLs at predicting future recall for some subsets of items, but the reverse was true for other subsets of items. Finally, eventual recall performance was facilitated when participants made JOLs but not when they made RCJs, suggesting that the JOL task helps to improve people's learning of the items.     

Delayed judgments of learning cause both a decrease in absolute accuracy (calibration) and an increase in relative accuracy (resolution)

A version of the PRAM methodology that permits an analytical evaluation of judgment of learning (JOL) accuracy was used for the first time to assess absolute accuracy (specifically, calibration). Results are reported from a new experiment in which Swahili-English translation equivalents were studied, followed sometime later (either immediately, approximately 1 min, or approximately 8 min) by pre-JOL recall and JOLs, and followed eventually by final recall. The calibration accuracy for predicting final recall decreased as the delay between study and JOL increased, with the decrease being most dramatic when only items that were recalled at the time of the JOL were considered. In contrast, relative accuracy (as measured by an overall gamma) improved as the delay between study and JOL increased. Participants appear insensitive to the combined effects of the recallability of the items at the time of the JOLs and of the delay between JOL and testing on the accuracy of JOLs.     

Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning

Previous studies have suggested that perceptual information regarding to-be-remembered words in the study phase affects the accuracy of judgement of learning (JOL). However, few have investigated whether the perceptual information in the JOL phase influences JOL accuracy. This study examined the influence of cue word perceptual information in the JOL phase on immediate and delayed JOL accuracy through changes in cue word font size. In Experiment 1, large-cue word pairs had significantly higher mean JOL magnitude than small-cue word pairs in immediate JOLs and higher relative accuracy than small-cue pairs in delayed JOLs, but font size had no influence on recall performance. Experiment 2 increased the JOL time, and mean JOL magnitude did not reliably differ for large-cue compared with small-cue pairs in immediate JOLs. However, the influence on relative accuracy still existed in delayed JOLs. Experiment 3 increased the familiarity of small-cue words in the delayed JOL phase by adding a lexical decision task. The results indicated that cue word font size no longer affected relative accuracy in delayed JOLs. The three experiments in our study indicated that the perceptual information regarding cue words in the JOL phase affects immediate and delayed JOLs in different ways.     

When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the “Displaced-JOL effect”

Judgments of learning (JOL) made after a delay more accurately predict subsequent recall than JOLs made immediately after learning. One explanation is that delayed JOLs involve retrieving information about the target item from secondary memory, whereas immediate JOLs involve retrieval from primary memory. One view of working memory claims that information in primary memory is displaced to secondary memory when attention is shifted to a secondary task. Thus, immediate JOLs might be as accurate as delayed JOLs if an intervening task displaces the target item from primary memory, requiring retrieval from secondary memory, prior to making the JOL. In four experiments, participants saw related word-pairs and made JOLs predicting later recall of the item. In Experiment 1, delayed JOLs were more accurate than JOLs made shortly after learning, regardless of whether a secondary task intervened between learning and JOL. In Experiments 2–4, the secondary task demands increased and JOLs made shortly after learning with an intervening task were just as accurate as delayed JOLs, and both were more accurate than immediate JOLs with no intervening task (Experiment 4). These results are consistent with a retrieval-based account of JOLs, and demonstrate that the “delayed-JOL effect” can be obtained without a long delay.     

Processing similarity does not improve metamemory: evidence against transfer-appropriate monitoring

The transfer-appropriate monitoring (TAM) hypothesis of metamemory predicts that judgment of learning (JOL) accuracy should improve when conditions during JOLs closely match conditions of the memory test. The authors devised 5 types of delayed JOLs for paired associates and varied them along with the type of memory test (cued recall or recognition). If the TAM hypothesis is correct, JOL and test type should interact to influence metamemory. Contrary to TAM, metamemory accuracy did not improve when JOL and test conditions matched but instead tended to vary according to whether the answer was apparent at time of JOL. Memory test scores and JOL magnitude were both greater when the correct target was evident during JOLs. Overall, the results are largely consistent with a monitoring retrieval view of delayed JOLs and do not support TAM as a viable account of JOL accuracy.     

加工流畅性和提取流畅性与学习不良儿童学习判断的关系

流畅性是个体做学习判断（Judgements of Learning, JOLs）时的重要线索,主要包括加工流畅性和提取流畅性。实验采用联想字对作为实验材料,把做JOLs的时间分为即刻JOLs (Immediate:I)（学习完一个项目立即判断）,短时延迟JOLs（Delay condition: D1）和长时延迟JOLs（D2）,考察不同JOLs时间条件下,流畅性线索对学习不良儿童和一般儿童的JOLs的不同预测模式。被试为普通小学五年级学习不良和一般儿童各20名,结果发现,一般儿童在I条件下主要利用加工流畅性,在D条件下主要利用提取流畅性做JOLs,而学习不良儿童无论在I还是D条件下均主要利用提取流畅性线索做JOLs。加工流畅性在I条件下效度较高,提取流畅性在D条件下效度较高     

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs)

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information-such as memory failure-to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.     

The role of age of acquisition in memory: effects on judgements of learning and recall

Judgements of learning (JOLs) are self-made predictions of the likelihood that one will later recall information. The influence of stimulus characteristics on JOLs and recall continues to receive attention, yet there are still a number of unexplored lexical word features that may exert an effect on mnemonic processing. Using a standard cue-target paradigm, we focused on the role of word age of acquisition (AoA) and evaluated the role of both cue and target AoA on responses. We replicated the robust delayed-JOL effect and used a novel items analysis approach to examine the relationship between intrinsic word features and accuracy and reaction times for both JOLs and recall. A consistent effect of target AoA was found, even after controlling for a range of covariates previously shown to impact JOLs and recall. These results expand the role of AoA in word processing and suggest that it is a key variable in memory and metacognition; they also support Koriat's (1997) cue utilization framework.     

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.     

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs)

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information—such as memory failure—to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.     

词频和运动流畅性对学习判断的影响：多线索整合的视角

本研究探讨基于经验的运动流畅性和基于理论的词频对学习判断的影响以及二者可能存在的相互作用,探讨非分析性加工和分析性加工在元认知监测中的作用模式。结果显示：（1）运动流畅性和词频均会影响JOL;（2）运动流畅性对JOL的影响会因为词频的变化而改变,而在认知负荷条件下,词频对JOL的影响还会因为运动流畅性的变化而不同。研究结果支持JOL中的运动流畅性效应与词频效应,也表明分析性和非分析性加工在JOL中会共同发挥作用。     

词频和运动流畅性对学习判断的影响：多线索整合的视角

本研究探讨基于经验的运动流畅性和基于理论的词频对学习判断的影响以及二者可能存在的相互作用,探讨非分析性加工和分析性加工在元认知监测中的作用模式。结果显示：（1）运动流畅性和词频均会影响JOL;（2）运动流畅性对JOL的影响会因为词频的变化而改变,而在认知负荷条件下,词频对JOL的影响还会因为运动流畅性的变化而不同。研究结果支持JOL中的运动流畅性效应与词频效应,也表明分析性和非分析性加工在JOL中会共同发挥作用。     

The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: a meta-analytic review

Many studies have examined the accuracy of predictions of future memory performance solicited through judgments of learning (JOLs). Among the most robust findings in this literature is that delaying predictions serves to substantially increase the relative accuracy of JOLs compared with soliciting JOLs immediately after study, a finding termed the delayed JOL effect. The meta-analyses reported in the current study examined the predominant theoretical accounts as well as potential moderators of the delayed JOL effect. The first meta-analysis examined the relative accuracy of delayed compared with immediate JOLs across 4,554 participants (112 effect sizes) through gamma correlations between JOLs and memory accuracy. Those data showed that delaying JOLs leads to robust benefits to relative accuracy (g = 0.93). The second meta-analysis examined memory performance for delayed compared with immediate JOLs across 3,807 participants (98 effect sizes). Those data showed that delayed JOLs result in a modest but reliable benefit for memory performance relative to immediate JOLs (g = 0.08). Findings from these meta-analyses are well accommodated by theories suggesting that delayed JOL accuracy reflects access to more diagnostic information from long-term memory rather than being a by-product of a retrieval opportunity. However, these data also suggest that theories proposing that the delayed JOL effect results from a memorial benefit or the match between the cues available for JOLs and those available at test may also provide viable explanatory mechanisms necessary for a comprehensive account.     

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.     

Learning style,judgements of learning,and learning of verbal and visual information

The concept of learning style is immensely popular despite the lack of evidence showing that learning style influences performance. This study tested the hypothesis that the popularity of learning style is maintained because it is associated with subjective aspects of learning, such as judgements of learning (JOLs). Preference for verbal and visual information was assessed using the revised Verbalizer‐Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ). Then, participants studied a list of word pairs and a list of picture pairs, making JOLs (immediate, delayed, and global) while studying each list. Learning was tested by cued recall. The results showed that higher VVQ verbalizer scores were associated with higher immediate JOLs for words, and higher VVQ visualizer scores were associated with higher immediate JOLs for pictures. There was no association between VVQ scores and recall or JOL accuracy. As predicted, learning style was associated with subjective aspects of learning but not objective aspects of learning.     

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.     

A model for stochastic drift in memory strength to account for judgments of learning

Previous research has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) made immediately after encoding have a low correlation with actual cued-recall performance, whereas the correlation is high for delayed judgments. In this article, the authors propose a formal theory describing the stochastic drift of memory strength over the retention interval to account for the delayed-JOL effect. This is done by first decomposing the aggregated memory strength into exponential functions with slow and fast memory traces. The mean aggregated memory strength shows power-function forgetting curves. The drift of the memory strength is large for immediate JOLs (causing a low predictability) and weak for delayed JOLs (causing a high predictability). Consistent with empirical data, the model makes a novel prediction of JOL asymmetry, or that immediate weak JOLs are more predictive of future performance than are immediate strong JOLs. The JOL distributions for immediate and delayed JOLs are also accounted for.     

Acute aerobic exercise improves memory across intensity and fitness levels

ABSTRACT

The present study was designed to examine the impact of exercise intensity and aerobic fitness on free recall, judgments of learning (JOLs), and metacognitive accuracy. In Experiment 1, 30 college students engaged in either (1) no exercise, (2) light exercise (55% of predicted maximal heart rate), or (3) moderate exercise (75% of predicted maximal heart rate) on three different days. In Experiment 2, 29 high-fit students (VO₂ max?≥?70th percentile) and 28 low-fit students (VO₂ max?≤?50th percentile) completed sedentary and light exercise conditions. In both experiments, free recall scores significantly increased in the exercise conditions compared with the sedentary condition, but JOL magnitude and metacognitive accuracy were largely unaffected. These results demonstrate that exercise can improve recall at both light and high intensities, and that the benefit can be obtained by individuals regardless of their fitness level.     

Familiarity and retrieval processes in delayed judgments of learning

Two processes are postulated to underlie delayed judgments of learning (JOLs)--cue familiarity and target retrievability. The two processes are distinguishable because the familiarity-based judgments are thought to be faster than the retrieval-based processes, because only retrieval-based JOLs should enhance the relative accuracy of the correlations between the JOLs and criterion test performance, and because only retrieval-based judgments should enhance memory. To test these predictions, in three experiments, the authors either speeded people's JOLs or allowed them to be unspeeded. The relative accuracy of the JOLs in predicting performance on the criterion test was higher for the unspeeded JOLs than for the speeded JOLs, as predicted. The unspeeded JOL conditions showed enhanced memory as compared with the speeded JOL conditions, as predicted. Finally, the unspeeded JOLs were sensitive to manipulations that modified recallability of the target, whereas the speeded JOLs were selectively sensitive to experimental variations in the familiarity of the cues. Thus, all three of the predictions about the consequences of the two processes potentially underlying delayed JOLs were borne out. A model of the processes underlying delayed JOLs based on these and earlier results is presented.