Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognitive Control of Learning and Remembering

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Science of Learning

Abstract

This chapter reviews research on the role of metacognition in self-directed learning, with a particular emphasis on metacognitive control. Learners can regulate their study experience to enhance learning by self-pacing study effectively, devising efficient study schedules, judiciously selecting items for study and re-study, strategically making use of self-testing strategies, accommodating study to anticipated test conditions, and using successful retrieval strategies. We review research that reveals how learners use these strategies in simple laboratory tasks and that suggests how such metacognitive skills can be improved through instruction or experience. We end by addressing the supportive role that information technology can play in the processes by which metacognition influences learning and memory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, L. T. (1985). Improving memory: Can retrieval strategies help? Human Learning, 4, 281–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second-language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2007). Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Logan, J. M. (2007). Is expanded retrieval practice a superior form of spaced retrieval? A critical review of the extant literature. In J. S. Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger, III (pp. 83–105). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, F. S. (1996). Mnemonic methods for storage and retrieval. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 345–380). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belmont, J. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1971). Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 411–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S. (2001). On the dual effects of repetition on false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 941–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31, 297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S. (2005). Response speeding mediates the contribution of cue familiarity and target retrievability to metamnemonic judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 874–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S. (2008). Memory is more than just remembering: Strategic control of encoding, accessing memory, and making decisions. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Skill and Strategy in Memory Use (Vol. 48, pp. 175–223). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Bawa, S. (2004). Distractor plausibility and criterion placement in recognition. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.), Implicit Memory and Metacognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). On the relationship between recognition speed and accuracy for words rehearsed via rote versus elaborative rehearsal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 638–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatarah, P., Ward, G., & Tan, L. (2008). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: the serial nature of recall and the effect of test expectancy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 2, pp. 35–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1989). On the puzzling relationship between environmental context and human memory. In C. Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flowerree Symposium on Cognition (pp. 313–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costermans, J., Lories, G., & Ansay, C. (1992). Confidence level and feeling of knowing in question answering: The weight of inferential processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 142–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deese, J., & Kaufman, R. A. (1957). Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(3), 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 945–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1988). Developmental differences in children’s allocation of study time. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allocation of study time: Differential and sufficient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 274–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about strategy effectiveness: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology & Aging, 15, 462–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M., & Thiede, K. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Cognitive Technology, 10, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1180–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition. Special Issue: Memory and Cognition Applied, 20(4), 374–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect people’s self-paced study and yield “labor-and-gain” effects. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Serra, M., & Baker, J. M. C. (2007). Metamemory. In F. Durso, R. Nickerson, S. Dumais, S. Lewandowsky, & T. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Cognition (2nd ed., pp. 137–159). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Ydewalle, G., Swerts, A., & De Corte, E. (1983). Study time and test performance as a function of test expectations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earhard, M. (1967). Subjective organization and list organization as determinants of free-recall and serial-recall memorization. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 6, 501–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falmagne, J., Cosyn, E., Doignon, J., & Thiéry, N. (2003). The assessment of knowledge, in theory and practice. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks/Science_Behind_ALEKS.pdf

  • Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S., (2009). Adaptive changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test expectancy paradigm. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., & Craik, F. I. (1977). Interaction between encoding and retrieval operations in cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3(6), 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetisssian, I. V., et al. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12(1), 74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., & Dobbins, I. G. (2009). Regulating recognition decisions through incremental reinforcement learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 469–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F., & Kubovy, M. (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(5), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F., & Kubovy, M. (1977). A comparison of recognition memory to numerical decision: How prior probabilities affect cutoff location. Memory & Cognition, 5(1), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, C., Dunlosky, J., & Robinson, A. E. (2007). Intellectual abilities and metacognitive beliefs influence spontaneous use of effective encoding strategies. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Georgia Institute of Technology web site: http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/chertzog/papers/esm-15.pdf

  • Huang, I. (1986). Transitory Changes of Primacy and Recency in Successive Single-Trial Free Recall. Journal of General Psychology, 113(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, I., Tomasini, J., & Nikl, L. (1977). The primacy and recency effects in successive single-trial immediate free recall. Journal of General Psychology, 97(2), 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, J. C. (1968). Delayed recall and the serial-position effect of short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4, Pt. 1), 618–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S. H. K. (2009). The Influence of Test Expectancy, Test Format, and Test Experience on Study Strategy Selection and Long-term Retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University at St. Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. A., Addis, K. M., & Kahana, M. J. (2005). A comparative analysis of serial and free recall. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 833–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobasigawa, A., & Metcalf-Haggert, A. (1993). Spontaneous allocation of study-time by first- and third- grade children on a simple memory task. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Aleven, V., Roll, I., & Baker, R. S. Jd. (2009). In vivo experiments on whether supporting metacognition in intelligent tutoring systems yields robust learning.In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konopka, A. E., & Benjamin, A. S. (2009). Schematic knowledge changes what judgments of learning predict in a source memory task. Memory & Cognition, 37(1), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacogntion: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimizing self-regulated study: The benefits-and costs-of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 609–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17(5), 493–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools (vol. 2): No more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T. K., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 625–632). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Ny, J. F., Denheire, G., & Taillanter, D. (1972). Regulation of study-time and interstimulus similarity in self-paced learning conditions. Acta Psychologica, 36, 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet Environments for Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2009). Learning to avoid part-list cues. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Fang, G. (2005). Development of children’s strategy on allocation of study time. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(5), 623–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Fang, G. (2006). Development of elementary school students on allocation of study time under different time limit. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(3), 365–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 756–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992). The basis of test predictions for text material. The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Blischak, D. M., & Challis, B. (1994). The effects of test expectancy on processing and memory of prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 230–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 851–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, J. H., & Balota, D. A. (1981). Test-expectancy and semantic-organization effects in recall and recognition. Memory & cognition, 9(3), 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe, & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1984). Retrieval inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research. Memory & cognition, 12(6), 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postma, A. (1999). The influence of decision criteria upon remembering and knowing in recognition memory. Acta Psychologica, 103(1–2), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postman, L. (1964). Studies of learning to learn: II. Changes in transfer as a function of practice. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 3(5), 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 90–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Metacognition and part-set cuing: Can interference be predicted at retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 36, 1429–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III. (1980). The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6(5), 558–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Can help seeking be tutored? Searching for the secret sauce of metacognitive tutoring. In R. Luckin, K. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED 2007 (pp. 203–210). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotello, C. M., & Macmillan, N. A. (2008). Response bias in recognition memory. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Skill and Strategy in Memory Use (Vol. 48, pp. 61–94). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serra, M. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition and Education (pp. 278-298). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 592–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. M. (1979). Remembering in and out of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(5), 460–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2006). Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, 30, 759–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1379–1396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surber, J. R. (1983). The influence of decision factors on what is reported in free recall of a brief narrative. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(2), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: Analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 1024–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 1352–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2009). The effectiveness of self-paced study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, N. C. (1961). Free versus serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. D., & Hollan, J. D. (1981). The process of retrieval from very long term memory. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 87–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2009). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, G. (2008, May). Want to remember everything you’ll ever learn? Surrender to this algorithm. Wired, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, P. A., & Gorzelañczyk, E. J. (1994). Optimization of repetition spacing in the practice of learning. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 54, 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacks, R. T. (1969). Invariance of total learning time under different conditions of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    Jason R. Finley, Jonathan G. Tullis & Aaron S. Benjamin

Authors
  1. Jason R. Finley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan G. Tullis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aaron S. Benjamin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason R. Finley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, POBox 1266, Utd.Arab.Emir.

    Myint Swe Khine

  2. Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, PO Box 126, Utd.Arab.Emir.

    Issa M. Saleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finley, J.R., Tullis, J.G., Benjamin, A.S. (2010). Metacognitive Control of Learning and Remembering. In: Khine, M., Saleh, I. (eds) New Science of Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation