Abstract
Memory researchers using paired associates have benefited greatly from the Swahili—English norms reported by Nelson and Dunlosky (1994). Given recent increases in the amount and kinds of research using paired associates, however, researchers would now benefit from an expanded set of normative measures for foreign language vocabulary words. We report data for 120 Lithuanian—English word pairs collected from 236 undergraduates. Participants completed three study-test trials and were asked to make metacognitive judgments for each item. We report normative recall performance, recall latencies, and error types for each item across trials, as well as the perceived difficulty of each item on the basis of metacognitive judgments.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.012
Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J. T., & Vul, E. (2008). The effects of tests on learning and forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 36, 438–448. doi:10.3758/MC.36.2.438
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.
Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00051-6
Jang, Y., & Nelson, T. O. (2005). How many dimensions underlie judgments of learning and recall? Evidence from state-trace methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 308–326. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.308
Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469–486. doi:10.1037/a0017341
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III (2007). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 704–719. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966–968. doi:10.1126/ science.1152408
Kelemen, W. L., & Creeley, C. E. (2001). Caffeine (4 mg/kg) influences sustained attention and delayed free recall but not memory predictions. Human Psychopharmacology, 16, 309–319. doi:10.1002/hup.287
Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A., III (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 92–107.
Kelemen, W. L., Winningham, R. G., & Weaver, C. A., III (2007). Repeated testing sessions and scholastic aptitude in college students’ metacognitive accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 689–717. doi:10.1080/09541440701326170
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits—and costs—of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136. doi:10.1080/09658210701763899
Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 609–622. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.609
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Norms of paired-associate recall during multitrial learning of Swahili—English translation equivalents. Memory, 2, 325–335. doi:10.1080/09658219408258951
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 331–347. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90040-Q
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2007). Examining the efficiency of schedules of distributed retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1917–1927.
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 437–447. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (in press). Costs and benefits of dropout schedules of test-restudy practice: Implications for student learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Richards, R. M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Effects of the difficulty of prior items on the magnitude of judgments of learning for subsequent items. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 81–91. doi:10.2307/ 1423597
Scheck, P., Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 71–79. doi:10.1016/ j.jml.2004.03.004
Scheck, P., & Nelson, T. O. (2005). Lack of pervasiveness of the underconfidence-with-practice effect: Boundary conditions and an explanation via anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 124–128. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.124
Thiede, K. W. (1999). The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 662–667.
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.
Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). The testing effect and the retention interval: Questions and answers. Experimental Psychology, 56, 252–257. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252
Van Overschelde, J. P., & Nelson, T. O. (2006). Delayed judgments of learning cause both a decrease in absolute accuracy (calibration) and an increase in relative accuracy (resolution). Memory & Cognition, 34, 1527–1538.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported here was supported by the Institute Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305H050038 to Kent State University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grimaldi, P.J., Pyc, M.A. & Rawson, K.A. Normative multitrial recall performance, metacognitive judgments, and retrieval latencies for Lithuanian—English paired associates. Behavior Research Methods 42, 634–642 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.634
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.634