Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 109–126 | Cite as

Study techniques differentially influence the delayed judgment-of-learning accuracy of adolescent children and college-aged adults

  • Gregory I. Hughes
  • Holly A. Taylor
  • Ayanna K. Thomas
Article

Abstract

The ways in which adult learners study information influences their judgment-of-learning (JOL) accuracy (e.g., Koriat et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 147-162, 2002). The present study extends this investigation to adolescent children to determine whether developing learners’ metacognitive monitoring is similarly influenced by different study techniques. In two experiments, we examined JOL accuracy in adolescent children (ages 11 to 12) and college-aged adults. Across both experiments, we employed a standard delayed-JOL paradigm in which three groups of participants, differing in type of study technique, encoded weakly-related word pairs. One group studied the word pairs twice (study practice). A second group studied with the instruction to generate a word that linked the two members of the word pair together (elaborative encoding). The final group studied word pairs and then took an immediate cued-recall test with feedback (retrieval practice). In children and adults, retrieval practice led to better JOL accuracy as compared to study practice. Children differed from adults in how elaborative encoding influenced JOL accuracy. For adults, elaborative encoding resulted in better JOL accuracy than study practice; however, for children, JOL accuracy did not differ between the two groups. Our results suggest that encoding processes influence delayed-JOL accuracy in both age-groups.

Keywords

Metamemory Children Judgments of learning Monitoring Retrieval practice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank John Kitzmiller, a mathematics educator at the Frances C. Richmond Middle School at Hanover, NH.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beuhring, T., & Kee, D. W. (1987a). Elaborative Propensities During Adolescence: The Relationships Among Memory Knowledge, Strategy Behavior, and Memory Performance. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Beuhring, T., & Kee, D. W. (1987b). Developmental relationships among metamemory, elaborative strategy use, and associative memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 44(3), 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, G. A., Marsh, R. L., Clark-Foos, A., & Meeks, J. T. (2010). Noncriterial recollection influences metacognitive monitoring and control processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 1936–1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563–1569.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1547–1552.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (2006). Source memory in the absence of successful cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 828–835.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, K. A., Toth, J. P., & Hertzog, C. (2009). Aging and recollection in the accuracy of judgments of learning. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., & Powell-Moman, A. (2005). The contribution of mediator-based deficiencies to age differences in associative learning. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2014). Overconfidence in children's multi-trial judgments of learning. Learning and Instruction, 32, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hertzog, C., Fulton, E. K., Sinclair, S. M., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Recalled aspects of original encoding strategies influence episodic feelings of knowing. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmann-Biencourt, A., Lockl, K., Schneider, W., Ackerman, R., & Koriat, A. (2010). Self-pace study time as a cue for recall predictions across school age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 767–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isingrini, M., Sacher, M., Perrotin, A., Taconnat, L., Souchay, C., Stoehr, H., & Bouazzaoui, B. (2016). Episodic feeling-of-knowing relies on noncriterial recollection and familiarity: Evidence using an online remember-know procedure. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 41, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jang, Y., Wallsten, T. S., & Huber, D. E. (2012). A stochastic detection and retrieval model for the study of metacognition. Psychological Review, 119(1), 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, J. F., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval practice. The American Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koriat, A., & Shitzer-Reichert, R. (2002). Metacognitive judgments and their accuracy. In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & P. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 1–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma'ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koriat, A., Ma'ayan, H., Sheffer, L., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Exploring a mnemonic debiasing account of the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 595–608.Google Scholar
  23. Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). The easily learned, easily remembered heuristic in children. Cognitive Development, 24(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehman, M., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: Dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1787–1794.Google Scholar
  25. Leonesio, R. J., & Nelson, T. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 464–470.Google Scholar
  26. Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 756–766.Google Scholar
  27. Mazzoni, G., Cornoldi, C., & Marchitelli, G. (1990). Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? Memory & Cognition, 18(2), 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCabe, D. P., & Soderstrom, N. C. (2011). Recollection-based prospective metamemory judgments are more accurate than those based on confidence: Judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKS). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2003). Multiple study trials and judgments of learning. Acta Psychologica, 113(2), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2013). Metacognition and control of study choice in children. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The "delayed-JOL effect.". Psychological Science, 2(4), 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25, Chapter xiii, 334 Pages)). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida Word Association, Rhyme, and Word Fragment Norms.Google Scholar
  36. Nelson, T. O., Narens, L., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment recall and monitoring (PRAM). Psychological Methods, 9(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parks, C. M. (2007). The role of noncriterial recollection in estimating recollection and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peynircioğlu, Z. F., Brandler, B. J., Hohman, T. J., & Knutson, N. (2014). Metacognitive judgments in music performance. Psychology of Music, 42(5), 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 270–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330(6002), 1–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pyc, M. A., Rawson, K. A., & Aschenbrenner, A. J. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring during criterion learning: When and why are judgments accurate? Memory & Cognition, 42(6), 886–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roebers, C. M., von der Linden, N., Schneider, W., & Howie, P. (2007). Children's metamemorial judgments in an event recall task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97(2), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider, W., Visé, M., Lockl, K., & Nelson, T. O. (2000). Developmental trends in children’s monitoring: Evidence from a judgment-of-learning. Cognitive Development, 15, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: User's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
  47. Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93–113, Chapter xiii, 334 Pages)). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1992). Memory-monitoring accuracy as influenced by the distribution of retrieval practice. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(2), 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thiede, K. W. (1999). The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 662–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, A. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: Dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Dubois, S. J. (2011). Context affects feeling-of-knowing accuracy in younger and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 96–108.Google Scholar
  54. Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Dubois, S. J. (2012). An analysis of the determinants of the feeling of knowing. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 21(4), 1681–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsalas, N., Paulus, M., & Sodian, B. (2015). Developmental changes and the effect of self-generated feedback in metacognitive controlled spacing strategies in 7-year-olds, 10-year-olds, and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41(3), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Undorf, M., Böhm, S., & Cüpper, L. (2016). Do judgments of learning predict automatic influences of memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 882–896.Google Scholar
  58. van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). The effect of delayed-JOLs and sentence generation on children’s monitoring accuracy and regulation of idiom study. Metacognition and Learning, 8(2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Loon, M., de Bruin, A., Leppink, J., & Roebers, C. (2017). Why are children overconfident? developmental differences in the implementation of accessibility cues when judging concept learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. von der Linden, N., Löffler, E., & Schneider, W. (2015). Effects of a short strategy training on metacognitive monitoring across the life-span. Frontline Learning Research, 3(4), 36–55.Google Scholar
  61. Weaver, C. A., & Kelemen, W. L. (2003). Processing similarity does not improve metamemory: Evidence against transfer-appropriate monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1058–1065.Google Scholar
  62. Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2017). The role of episodic context in retrieval practice effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1036–1046.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory I. Hughes
    • 1
  • Holly A. Taylor
    • 1
  • Ayanna K. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations