Abstract
College students’ ability to judge whether a studied item had been learned well enough to be recalled on a later test was examined in three experiments with self-paced learning procedures. Generally, these learners compensated for item difficulty when allocating study time, studying hard items longer than easy items, but they still recalled more easy items than hard items and tended to drop items out too soon. When provided with test opportunities during study or a delay between study and judgment, learners compensated significantly more for item difficulty and recalled substantially more. Paradoxically, good and poor learners compensated similarly for item difficulty and benefited similarly from testing during study and from delayed decision making. Thus, although the ability to make metamemory decisions was shown to be important for effective learning, these decisions were made equally well by good and poor associative learners. An analysis of tasks used to investigate metamemory-memory relationships in adult learning may provide an account for this apparent learning ability paradox.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arbuckle, T. Y., &Cuddy, L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 126–131.
Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., &Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 610–632.
Carrier, M., &Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention.Memory & Cognition,20, 633–642.
Dunlosky, J., &Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect.Memory & Cognition,20, 374–380.
Glenberg, A. M., &Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 702–718.
Intons-Peterson, M J., &Smyth, M. M (1987) The anatomy of repertory memoryJournal of Experimental Phenology Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 490–500
Kearney, E M, &Zechmeister E B. (1989) Judgments of item difficulty by good and poor associative learnersAmerican Journal of Psychology.102, 365–383
King, J. F, Zechmfister, E. B, &Shaughnessy, J J (1980). Judgments of knowing The influence of retrieval practiceAmerican Journal of Psychology,93, 329–343
Lovelace, E A (1984) Metamemory. Monitoring future recallability during studyJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, A Cognition,10, 756–766
Maki, R. H. &Berry, S. L (1984) Metacomprehcnsion of text materialJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory & Cognition.10, 663–679
Maki, R. H, &Sweti, S. (1987) Metamemory for narrative textMemory A Cognition.15, 72–83
Mazzoni, G., Cornoldi, C, &Makchitflli, G (1990) Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation?Memory & Cognition,18, 196–204
Nelson, T. O, &Dunlosky, J (1991) When people’s judgments of (earning (JOLs) arc extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall The delayed JOL effectPsychological Science,2, 267–270
Nelson, T O, &Dunlosky, J (1992) How shall we explain the delayed-judgment of-ieaming effect?Psychological Science,3. 317–318
Nelson, T O, &Leonfsio, R J (1988) Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory & Cognition.14, 676–686
Nelson, T O. &Nahens, L. (1990) Metamemory A theoretical framework and new findings In G. Bower (Ed).The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 26. Advances in research and theory (pp. 125–173). New York- Academic Press
Owings, R A, Petersen, G. A. Bransiurd, J D. Morris, C D, &Stein, B S (1980) Spontaneous monitonng and regulation of learning A comparison of successful and less successful fifth graders.Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 250–256
Prfssley, M. Levin, J. R. &Ghatala, E S (1984) Memory strategy monitoring in adults and childrenJournal of Verbal Learning A Verbal Behavior,23, 270–288
Shalghnessy, J. J (1979) Confidence-judgment accuracy as a predictor of test performanceJournal of Research in Personality,13. 505–514
Shaughnessy, J. J, &Zechmeister, E. B (1992). Memory-monitonng accuracy as influenced by the distribution of retrieval practiceBulletin of the Psychonomic Society,30, 125–128.
Spellman, B A., &Bjork, R A (1992) When predictions create reality Judgments of learning may alter what they are intended to assess.Psychological Science,3, 315–316.
Underwood, B. J (1966) Individual and group predictions of item difficulty for free learningJournal of Experimental Psychology,71. 673–679.
Underwood, B J (1982). Paired associate learning Data on pair difficulty and vanables that influence difficultyMemory & Cognition,10, 610–617.
Zacks, R T (1969) Invariance of total learning time under different conditions of practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology.82, 441–447
Zechmeister, E. B. &Bennett, D J (1991) How easy is it to judge ease of teaming?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 36–38
Zechmeister, E B. &Nyberg, S. E. (1982).Human memory. An introduction to research and theory Pacific Grove. CA Brooks/Cote.
Zechmeister, E. B. Rusch, K. M., &Markell, K A. (1986) Training college students to assess accurately what they know and don’t knowHuman Learning,5, 3–19
Zechmeister, E B. &Shaughnessy, J. J (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don’t.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 41–44
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
nt]mis|These experiments were conducted as part of a master’s thesis submitted by the first author to the Graduate School, Loyola University. Chicago
-Accepted by previous editor Margaret Jean Intony-Peterson
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cull, W.L., Zechmeister, E.B. The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners?. Memory & Cognition 22, 249–257 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208896
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208896