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

doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2476

Journal of Memory and Language

Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1997, Pages 34-49

https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2476 Get rights and content

Abstract

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.

References (0)

Cited by (78)

Drawing to improve metacomprehension accuracy
2022, Learning and Instruction
Citation Excerpt :
Thus, it is not surprising that much research has been dedicated to finding ways to improve metacomprehension accuracy (for a recent meta-analysis on ways to improve judgment accuracy see Prinz et al., 2020a, 2020b). One way to improve the accuracy of monitoring is to align the bases of metacognitive judgments with the learning that will determine performance on a test (Dunlosky & Nelson, 1997). In the language of the cue-utilization framework of metacognitive monitoring (Koriat, 1997), to improve metacomprehension accuracy, we want to identify cues that are predictive of performance on comprehension tests and then direct readers to use those cues when judging their comprehension of texts.
We examined the effect of drawing sketches on metacomprehension accuracy of science texts for 5th grade (ages 10–11) students (Study 1: N = 60, Study 2: N = 62). Students either received instruction on drawing organizational sketches, which focused on capturing the relationships described in texts, or representational sketches, which focused on capturing details described in texts. They then read and drew sketches for texts, predicted their performance, and completed tests. They completed this procedure for five texts. Metacomprehension accuracy was greater for students instructed to draw organizational sketches than for students instructed to draw representational sketches or those in a control group who did not draw (Study 2). Performance on comprehension tests was also greater for students instructed to draw organizational sketches than for students in other groups. The superior metacomprehension accuracy was explained in terms of the cue-utilization framework of metacognitive monitoring (Koriat, 1997).
How accurately can learners discriminate their comprehension of texts? A comprehensive meta-analysis on relative metacomprehension accuracy and influencing factors
2020, Educational Research Review
Citation Excerpt :
Accuracy appears to be highest with free-recall tests. This is in line with the transfer-appropriate-monitoring account, according to which metacomprehension accuracy is a direct function of the match between the judgment context and the test context (cf., e.g., I. Begg et al., 1989; Dunlosky & Nelson, 1997). Learners often base their predictions on the amount of textual information they can momentarily retrieve from memory (e.g., Baker & Dunlosky, 2006; Morris, 1990).
Over the last three and a half decades, much research has been conducted on how accurately learners can discriminate their comprehension of texts, that is, relative metacomprehension accuracy. The evidence suggests that this skill is usually not well-developed among learners. To assess the average level of relative metacomprehension accuracy and to explore which factors might influence this level, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis. The results obtained from 145 independent subgroups of 94 empirical studies indicate that relative metacomprehension accuracy is only moderate (r = .24, 95% CI [.21, .26]). At the same time, the level of relative metacomprehension accuracy was found to be moderated by a number of factors related to the learners (e.g., education level), texts (e.g., practice texts), judgments (e.g., time point of predictions), and tests (e.g., question format).
Testing Judgments of Learning in New Contexts to Reduce Confidence
2018, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Citation Excerpt :
Delayed judgments of learning made with changed contexts were lower in all three experiments than judgments of learning made for items in reinstated contexts. As with other metamemory illusions, such as the illusion of knowing (e.g., Glenberg, Wilkinson, & Epstein, 1982), the immediate/delayed judgment of learning effect (e.g., Dunlosky & Nelson, 1992, 1997), the cue familiarity effect (e.g., Metcalfe et al., 1993; Miner & Reder, 1994), and the font size effect (e.g., Besken & Mulligan, 2013; Undorf & Erdfelder, 2015; Undorf et al., 2017), the context reinstatement illusion shows how a factor that influences metamemory judgments may not affect memory performance. What caused the decrease in judgments of learning as a function of context change?
Students often prepare for exams by restudying slides or notes, but the familiarity of these repeatedly reinstated contexts may influence students to be unduly confident in their knowledge, and cease study prematurely. Experiment 1 investigated the effects of reinstatement of encoding contexts during delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) in a laboratory paradigm. At encoding, word pairs were superimposed over unrelated 5-s video contexts, with one video context per target. Delayed judgments of learning for cue–target pairs were given with encoding contexts either changed or reinstated. When the encoding context was changed, judgments of learning decreased relative to the reinstatement condition, without a concomitant decrease in recall (tested later with no context cues), thus producing a metamemory illusion. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated these results with different designs. Although context manipulations did not improve metacognitive accuracy, unfamiliar contexts reduced JOLs, a desirable impact that is associated with increased study choice.
Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom
2012, Learning and Instruction
Although there is abundant experimental metamemory research on the relation between students’ monitoring, regulation of learning, and learning outcomes, relatively little of this work has influenced educational research and practice. Metamemory research, traditionally based on experimental paradigms from cognitive psychology, can potentially contribute to designing and improving educational interventions that foster self-monitoring and self-regulation in children, adolescents, and young adult learners. We describe the metamemory paradigm, and provide a short overview of the insights it has generated with regard to improving metacognitive skills in these groups of learners. Moreover, we summarize the contributions to this special issue on translating insights from cognitive psychology research on metamemory to educational research and practice, and describe possible themes and directions for future research that could further bridge the gap between fundamental and more applied research on metacognition, so as to design effective educational interventions.
Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children
2011, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Citation Excerpt :
Schneider, Visé, Lockl, and Nelson (2000) were the first to apply the classic metamemory paradigm to children to evaluate whether the delayed judgment of learning (JOL) effect extended to children. The delayed JOL effect (Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991) refers to the finding that monitoring accuracy improves dramatically when JOLs are made after a delay rather than immediately after studying a word pair (for additional theoretical discussion of the mechanisms producing the effect, see Dunlosky & Nelson, 1997; Spellman & Bjork, 1992). Schneider and colleagues (2000) reported results that mirrored those previously found in adults; children (6-, 8-, and 10-year-olds) monitored memory performance more accurately when JOLs were made after a delay.
The ability to monitor understanding of texts, usually referred to as metacomprehension accuracy, is typically quite poor in adult learners; however, recently interventions have been developed to improve accuracy. In two experiments, we evaluated whether generating delayed keywords prior to judging comprehension improved metacomprehension accuracy for children. For sixth and seventh graders, metacomprehension accuracy was greater when generating keywords. By contrast, for fourth graders, metacomprehension accuracy did not differ across conditions. Improved metacomprehension accuracy led to improved regulation of study. The delayed keyword effect in children reported here is discussed in terms of situation model activation.
What you know can hurt you: Effects of age and prior knowledge on the accuracy of judgments of learning
2011, Psychology and Aging

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: This research was supported by Grant R01-MH32205 and a Research Scientist Award (K05-MH1075) from the National Institute of Mental Health to the second author. During the writing of the article, the first author was partially supported by a Research in Cognitive Aging Grant funded by PHS/NIH National Institute on Aging (5 T32 AG00175-07) to the Georgia Institute of Technology. We thank Lisa Tabor Connor for comments on a preliminary draft. Address reprint requests to Dr. John Dunlosky, 296 Eberhart Bldg, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, or to Dr. Thomas O. Nelson, Psychology Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

View full text

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

Abstract

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