Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 175–195 | Cite as

Metacognition and the spacing effect: the role of repetition, feedback, and instruction on judgments of learning for massed and spaced rehearsal

Article

Abstract

Although memory performance benefits from the spacing of information at encoding, judgments of learning (JOLs) are often not sensitive to the benefits of spacing. The present research examines how practice, feedback, and instruction influence JOLs for spaced and massed items. In Experiment 1, in which JOLs were made after the presentation of each item and participants were given multiple study-test cycles, JOLs were strongly influenced by the repetition of the items, but there was little difference in JOLs for massed versus spaced items. A similar effect was shown in Experiments 2 and 3, in which participants scored their own recall performance and were given feedback, although participants did learn to assign higher JOLs to spaced items with task experience. In Experiment 4, after participants were given direct instruction about the benefits of spacing, they showed a greater difference for JOLs of spaced vs massed items, but their JOLs still underestimated their recall for spaced items. Although spacing effects are very robust and have important implications for memory and education, people often underestimate the benefits of spaced repetition when learning, possibly due to the reliance on processing fluency during study and attending to repetition, and not taking into account the beneficial aspects of study schedule.

Keywords

Metamemory Memory Spacing effects Judgments of learning 

References

  1. Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: when agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138, 432–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D., & Longman, D. J. A. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, 610–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and peformance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Castel, A. D. (2008). Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: the utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 36, 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Illusions of competency and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: a review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delaney, P. F., & Knowles, M. E. (2005). Encoding strategy changes and spacing effects in the free recall of unmixed lists. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. deWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32, 945–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249–275). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: a componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and Aging, 15, 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glenberg, A. M. (1976). Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Glenberg, A. M. (1977). Influences of retrieval processes on the spacing effect in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hertzog, C., Price, J., Burpee, A., Frentzel, W. J., Feldstein, S., & Dunlosky, J. (2009). Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: inferential deficit or experimental artifact? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacoby, L. L., Bjork, R. A., & Kelley, C. M. (1994). Illusions of comprehensions and competence. In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing individual and team performance (pp. 57–80). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google 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, 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, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 34, 959–972.CrossRefGoogle 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, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: the role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133, 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). A stability bias in human memory: overestimating remembering and underestimating learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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, 464–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Logan, J. M., & Balota, D. A. (2008). Expanded vs. equal interval spaced retrieval practice: exploring different schedules of spacing and retention interval in younger and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 15, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 756–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madigan, S. A. (1969). Intraserial repetition and coding processes in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 828–835.Google Scholar
  31. Melton, A. W. (1970). The situation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 596–606.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, A. N. D., & Logan, J. M. (in press). Taking the testing effect beyond the college freshman: benefits for lifelong learning. Psychology and Aging. Google Scholar
  33. Murdock, B. B. (1974). Human memory: Theory and data. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Price, J., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2008). Age-related differences in strategy knowledge updating: blocked testing produces greater improvements in metacognitive accuracy for younger than older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 15, 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pyc, M. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Toward an understanding of students’ allocation of study time: Why do they decide to mass or space their practice? Memory and Cognition, 38, 431–440.Google Scholar
  36. Rawson, K., & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008a). Metacognition and part-set cuing: can interference be predicted at retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 36, 1429–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008b). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 137, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scheck, P., Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2001). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
  41. Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 907–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one’s study: evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: an analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2010). Metacognitive control and spaced practice: Clarifying what people do and why. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1480–1491.Google Scholar
  45. Toppino, T. C., Cohen, M. S., Davis, M. L., & Moors, A. C. (2009). Metacognitive control over the distribution of practice: when is spacing preferred? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1352–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Underwood, B. J. (1969). Attributes of memory. Psychological Review, 76, 559–573.Google Scholar
  47. Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2012). When disfluency is - and is not - a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition. Google Scholar
  48. Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you think you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don’t. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 41–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.The Center for Vital LongevityUniversity of TexasDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations