Accuracy Of Judgments Of Learning Research Articles

Blocked Presentation Leads Participants to Overutilize Domain Familiarity as a Cue for Judgments of Learning (JOLs).

The accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs) is vital for efficient self-regulated learning. We examined a situation in which participants overutilize their prior knowledge of a topic ("domain familiarity") as a basis for JOLs, resulting in substantial overconfidence in topics they know the most about. College students rank ordered their knowledge across ten different domains and studied, judged, and then completed a test on facts from those domains. Recall and JOLs were linearly related to self-rated knowledge, as was overconfidence: participants were most overconfident for topics they knew more about, indicating the overutilization of domain familiarity as a cue for JOLs. We examined aspects of the task that might contribute to this pattern, including the order of the task phases and whether participants studied the facts blocked by topic. Although participants used domain familiarity as a cue for JOLs regardless of task design, we found that studying facts from multiple topics blocked by topic led them to overutilize this cue. In contrast, whether participants completed the rank ordering before studying the facts or received a warning about this tendency did not alter the pattern. The relative accuracy of participants' JOLs, however, was not related to domain familiarity under any conditions.

The Relationship between Dispositional Mindfulness and Relative Accuracy of Judgments of Learning: The Moderating Role of Test Anxiety.

Research has demonstrated that metacognition accuracy is far from perfect. The accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs) is of critical importance in self-regulated learning. To explore what factors constrain JOL accuracy, the current study focused on mindfulness, which is intimately related to metacognition and anxiety. A total of 203 undergraduates (198 valid samples) were recruited to determine the relationships among five dimensions of dispositional mindfulness, test anxiety, and relative accuracy of JOLs. Results revealed that the interaction term for acting with awareness and test anxiety significantly predicted JOL accuracy. Further analyses indicated that for individuals with high test anxiety, but not for those with low test anxiety, acting with awareness positively predicted JOL accuracy. Considering that dispositional mindfulness is modifiable, these results help to inspire researchers to further explore whether mindfulness training can be used as a remedy to improve JOL accuracy.

Slow judgments of learning predict familiarity-based memories as measured by the remember-know task.

Dual-process theories of memory assume that memory is based on recollection and familiarity. A few dual-process approaches to metacognition have been proposed, which assume that metacognitive judgments, including judgments of learning (JOLs) or predictions about the likelihood of recall, are based on two, or slow and fast, processes. Prior research suggests that JOLs are generally linked to recollection and familiarity (e.g., higher JOLs for recollected items). However, the basis of JOLs is still unknown. Measuring JOL latency as well as magnitude, the present study investigated the underlying processes of JOLs for items that would be classified by the remember-know procedure in cued recall paradigms. Four experiments yielded three findings from individual experiment analyses and meta-analyses. First, high, middle, and low JOLs were assigned to items that received remember, know, and no-memory judgments, respectively. Second, JOL latencies were the longest for items that received a know judgment. For each, the effect was larger for delayed (vs. immediate) JOLs. Finally, in each JOL condition, there was no support for the idea that the relative accuracy of JOLs increases when memory performance is exclusively defined as items that received a remember judgment. Most importantly, the finding of JOL latency suggests that during study, middle-level JOLs are made on the basis of deliberate processes, which is consistent with dual-process approaches to JOLs, for items recalled with a know judgment at test. Discussions include possible processes leading to slow middle-level JOLs and relations of JOLs to recollection/familiarity, and theoretical/methodological issues with using the remember-know procedure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Memory and Executive Functions Subserving Judgments of Learning: Cognitive Reorganization After Traumatic Brain Injury

ABSTRACT We investigated relationships between psychometric measures of memory, executive functions (EFs), and task-based measures of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) in individuals with and without Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), to study functional reorganization after TBI. We hypothesized that, in controls, accuracy of immediate JOLs would be associated with short-term memory and EFs (but not long-term memory, LTM), while accuracy of delayed JOLs would be associated primarily with LTM. We hypothesized that those with good recovery from TBI would demonstrate functional reorganization of the relationships between memory, EFs, and JOLs. Eighteen individuals with TBI and 18 matched controls completed eight neuropsychological tests of memory and EFs. They studied word-pairs, made immediate and delayed JOLs, and took a cued-recall test for the studied word-pairs. Stepwise regression and Lasso analyses generated a predictive model of JOL accuracy for each group. Accuracy of immediate JOLs in controls was predicted by short-term memory, inhibition, switching, and cognitive fluency, while accuracy of delayed JOLs was predicted by verbal recall. In individuals with TBI, inhibition predicted immediate JOL accuracy and switching predicted delayed JOL accuracy. Cognitive reorganization in those with good long-term recovery from TBI may account for the ability to make JOLs with accuracy similar to controls.

The Relationship between Metacognitive Ability and Metacognitive Accuracy

Judgments of learning (JOLs), as one type of metacognitive judgments, are assessments that people make about how well they have learned material. The effective use of JOLs depends on various factors, including task-specific variables and the learner’s own metacognitive resources. Little has been known about the relationship between JOL accuracy for memory predictions and metacognitive ability, which is an emerging theory-practice gap in the field of metacognition. The present study investigated the relationship between the absolute accuracy of JOLs and the metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI), using concrete and abstract word pairs through three study-test cycles. We found that participants who scored high on the MAI, also produced a high level of absolute accuracy on each study-test cycle. The results from mediation analyses yielded that the impact of the MAI on absolute accuracy on cycle 3 was completely mediated by absolute accuracy on the first two cycles for both concrete and abstract word pairs. In addition, the same pattern of results was obtained even when a subset of the MAI (either knowledge or regulation of cognition) was used. These indicate that trait-based metacognitive abilities can well explain the correspondence between JOLs and recall performance on the first test. However, their impact is reduced after study-test practice, suggesting that experience-based factors become critical to improving metacognitive accuracy.

How influenceable is our metamemory for pictorial material? The impact of framing and emotionality on metamemory judgments

Metamemory refers to the ability to monitor and control one´s own memory processes which plays an important role in everyday life when accuracy of memory is required. The present study intends to give new insights into the complex relationship between confidence in memory and accuracy of metamemory judgments for negative emotional and neutral pictorial stimuli. Judgments of learning (JOLs) were investigated in order to provide important theoretical information for practical applications in everyday life. A balanced 2×2 factorial experimental design was used to explore the impact of framing in terms of remembering or forgetting as well as emotionality on JOLs. With respect to the already known complex relationship of confidence in memory and accuracy of confidence statements, the present results emphasize this complexity by showing that there is no interaction between the factors framing and emotionality but significant main effects of these two factors with respect to JOLs. Furthermore, accuracy of JOLs is not influenced by framing in terms of remembering and forgetting. Both framing conditions lead to overconfident judgments, regardless of whether confidence in memory is influenced by framing. Emotionality, on the other hand, enhances memory accuracy regardless of whether the subjective feeling of remembering influences confidence in memory or not. The present findings highlight the need to strengthen the collective consciousness about the influenceability of confidence in memory and the fact that a high confidence in memory is not inevitably accompanied by accurate memories.

Accuracy of primary school children’s immediate and delayed judgments of learning about problem-solving tasks

Accuracy of students’ judgments of learning (JOLs) plays an important role in self-regulated learning. Most studies on JOL accuracy have focused on learning word pairs and text but problems-solving tasks are also very important in education. This study investigated whether children in grade 3 could differentiate in their JOLs between problem-solving tasks that varied in complexity. Participants (N = 76, 8–10 years old) engaged in solving four arithmetic problems, rated mental effort invested in each problem, gave either immediate or delayed JOLs, and completed a test containing isomorphic problems. The negative correlation that was found between invested mental effort and JOLs suggested that children's JOLs are sensitive to differences in complexity of the problem-solving tasks. Results on the relative and absolute accuracy of JOLs showed that immediate JOLs were numerically higher than delayed JOLs, and relative accuracy of immediate JOLs was moderately accurate, whereas delayed JOLs were not.

Age-Related Differences in Metamemory Accuracy among the Elderly: The Effect of Declining Inhibitory Function

To explore the age-related difference in metamemory accuracy during older adulthood, we measured the metamemory calibration and resolution of older participants. In Study 1, we divided the participants into four groups by age: 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, and above 75 years. We used young adults as a contrast group. The results revealed the inconsistency of age-related differences in calibration and resolution. The young adults had higher calibration in global prediction than the four groups of older adults before the study, whereas there were no differences among the four elderly groups. There were no differences in resolution between the 60- to 64-year, 65- to 69-year and young adult groups, but these three groups had higher resolution than the 70- to 74-year and above 75-year groups for item-by-item prediction. In Study 2, we measured the older participants’ inhibitory function to explore whether impaired inhibitory function led to a decline in metacognitive ability in the elderly. The results showed that the inhibition function was highly correlated with the accuracy of judgments of learning (JOL) and can predict the accuracy of JOL to a certain extent.

Do judgments of learning predict automatic influences of memory?

Current memory theories generally assume that memory performance reflects both recollection and automatic influences of memory. Research on people's predictions about the likelihood of remembering recently studied information on a memory test, that is, on judgments of learning (JOLs), suggests that both magnitude and resolution of JOLs are linked to recollection. However, it has remained unresolved whether JOLs are also predictive of automatic influences of memory. This issue was addressed in 3 experiments. Using the process-dissociation procedure, we assessed the predictive accuracy of immediate and delayed JOLs (Experiment 1) and of immediate JOLs from a first and from a second study-test cycle (Experiments 2 and 3) for recollection and automatic influences. Results showed that each type of JOLs was predictive of both recollection and automatic influences. Moreover, we found that a delay between study and JOL improved the predictive accuracy of JOLs for recollection, while study-test experience improved the predictive accuracy of JOLs for both recollection and automatic influences. These findings demonstrate that JOLs predict not only recollection, but also automatic influences of memory. (PsycINFO Database Record

People use the memory for past-test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning.

When people estimate their memory for to-be-learned material over multiple study-test trials, they tend to base their judgments of learning (JOLs) on their test performance for those materials on the previous trial. Their use of this information-known as the memory for past-test (MPT) heuristic-is believed to be responsible for improvements in the relative accuracy (resolution) of people's JOLs across learning trials. Although participants seem to use past-test information as a major basis for their JOLs, little is known about how learners translate this information into a judgment of learning. Toward this end, in two experiments, we examined whether participants factored past-test performance into their JOLs in either an explicit, theory-based way or an implicit way. To do so, we had one group of participants (learners) study paired associates, make JOLs, and take a test on two study-test trials. Other participants (observers) viewed learners' protocols and made JOLs for the learners. Presumably, observers could only use theory-based information to make JOLs for the learners, which allowed us to estimate the contribution of explicit and implicit information to learners' JOLs. Our analyses suggest that all participants factored simple past-test performance into their JOLs in an explicit, theory-based way but that this information made limited contributions to improvements in relative accuracy across trials. In contrast, learners also used other privileged, implicit information about their learning to inform their judgments (that observers had no access to) that allowed them to achieve further improvements in relative accuracy across trials.

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.

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.

Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning

This research explored the absolute accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs), wherein absolute accuracy pertains to how well the magnitude of the participant's predictions of recall correspond to his or her subsequent recall. The Anchoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does not change systematically with item difficulty; analogous to a broken clock that is correct twice a day, the absolute magnitude of JOLs may be accurate by chance and not because of any inherent predictive ability. Alternatively, the Monitoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does vary systematically with item difficulty. The Dual-Factors hypothesis proposes that the absolute accuracy of JOLs is affected by some combination of monitoring and anchoring. In four experiments, participants studied a list of paired-associates with a high, medium or low normative proportion of recall, then made JOLs for every item, and subsequently had a recall test. The absolute accuracy of JOLs was investigated both for immediate JOLs and for delayed JOLs. The results were consistent with the Monitoring Hypothesis for delayed JOLs and with the Dual-Factors Hypothesis for immediate JOLs.

Multiple study trials and judgments of learning

We compared judgments of learning (JOLs) that were made either (a) after 1 study trial, (b) 2 study trials, or (c) in-between the 1st and 2nd study trials. In regard to the absolute accuracy of JOLs at predicting subsequent recall, we replicated previous findings of an underconfidence-with-practice effect for immediate JOLs and report for the first time a new finding of an underconfidence-with-practice effect for delayed JOLs (i.e., delayed JOLs after one trial overestimated the likelihood of subsequent recall, whereas delayed JOLs after two trials underestimated that likelihood). Also, although delayed JOLs always had a greater relative accuracy than did immediate JOLs, the relative accuracy of immediate and delayed JOLs was approximately the same after 1 versus 2 study trials. These results demonstrate that additional study trials affect the absolute accuracy of all JOLs but not the relative accuracy of any JOLs. Thus an increase in the number of study trials produced an increasing bias to be underconfident about the subsequent likelihood of recall but did not affect people’s ordering of which items had been more (versus less) well-learned.

Similarity between the Cue for Judgments of Learning (JOL) and the Cue for Test Is Not the Primary Determinant of JOL Accuracy

Eventual memory performance is predicted more accurately when a person's judgment of learning (JOL) is delayed until shortly after studying an item than when made immediately after studying the item. According to the transfer-appropriate-monitoring hypothesis, this delayed-JOL effect arises because of the contextual similarity between the cue for the JOL and the cue for the memory test. In three paired-associate learning experiments, delayed JOLs were cued by the stimulus alone or by the stimulus-response pair, and the eventual test was associative recognition of stimulus-response pairs. Recognition of stimulus-response pairs was predicted more accurately when JOLs had been cued by the stimulus alone than when they had been cued by the stimulus-response pair, even though the latter was more similar than the former to the cue for the recognition test. Implications of these results, especially the lack of support for the class of theories emphasizing transfer-appropriate monitoring, are discussed for theories of the accuracy of JOLs.

Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance.

The accuracy of students' judgments of learning (JOLs) in predicting recognition versus recall was investigated in 4 experiments. Students studied paired associates and made JOLs, which occurred either immediately after an item had been studied or shortly after an item had been studied. Students then received tests of associative recognition or paired-associate recall. JOL accuracy was greater for delayed JOLs than immediate JOLs, and the accuracy of JOLs was lower in predicting recognition than recall. The latter finding occurred (a) regardless of whether students had anticipated a recall test or a recognition test when making JOLs and (b) regardless of whether JOLs had been cued by only the stimulus of an item or by the entire stimulus-response pair. Correct guessing was shown to contribute to the lower accuracy of students' predictions of recognition.