Self-regulated Learning

Question 1

Arbuckle & Cuddy 1969 - JOL correlates with performance imperfectly

Answer 1

• investigated how people made predictions about their own future memory performance
• used verbal and numeral materials (pairs of two digits)
• small study 4 subjects
• study phase: participants studied lists of pairs (e.g. T- 23)
  test phase: made judgements of learning based on how well they thought they would be able to recall the pair (e.g. remembering T was matched with 23)
• correct answer + wrong prediction = metacognitive error
• wrong answer + correct prediction = metacognitive error

Question 2

Arbuckle & Cuddy 1969 - JOL correlates with performance imperfectly FINDINGS

Answer 2

FOUND >
- people better than chance at making these judgements
- memory performance better for items they predicted they would remember (vs forget) > however imperfect
- not interested in accuracy or memory (second order judgements) and rather metacognitive judgements
- Criticisms > materials used artificial and binary

Question 3

Rhodes & Tauber 2011 - Metanalysis JOL and Memory performance

Answer 3

• JOL are positively correlated with memory but imperfect
  > Correlations between JOL and objective memory performance > Mean G is ~ 0.45
• perhaps access is not direct

Question 4

Rhodes and Castel 2008 - Perceptual fluency and JOL (FONT SIZE)

Answer 4

• ease of processing affects JOL
• gave ppts text > two different fonts for each condition but same text > in one condition text larger font size
• easier to read (larger) font size correlated led to feeling of increased fluency (ease of learning)
• ppts made higher JOL for larger font size despite no differences in actual recall between two font sizes

Question 5

Begg et al 1989 - Conceptual fluency and JOL (FREQUENCY)

Answer 5

• ease of processing affects JOL
• ppts given list of words to remember
• altered frequency of words (high, low, medium)
• ppts made higher JOL for higher frequency words > idea that higher frequency words will be processed more fluently
• FOUND opposite effect with actual performance > dissociation between JOL and memory performance

Question 6

Nelson & Dulonsky 1991 - Timing of JOL and answer accessibility

Answer 6

• delaying when a JOL is made improves JOL accuracy
• ppts given learning task > presented with two unrelated words on each trial
• every now and then ppts asked to make JOL > when one word seen would they remember the pair (on a scale of 0-100)
• for some items asked to give a delayed JOL instead of right after > followed by test phase with recall > paired association test
  FOUND
• immediate JOL condition > correlation with memory > G = .38
• delayed JOL > G= .9
• better performance with delay > perhaps due to time to test yourself

Question 7

Zechmeister & Shaugnessy 1980 - Study Condition and JOL

Answer 7

• spacing of learning trials
• ppts given word > asked to make JOL of later recall
• key manipulation > ppts see each word twice either in a row (massed practice) or interleaved (distributed practice)
• high JOL for massed practice however recall better for distributed practice
• perhaps due to fluency affect of massed trials > demonstrates people use other cues to introspect which may lead to false JOL

Question 8

Benjamin et al 1998 - Dissociable JOL and Recall (SPEED)

Answer 8

• asked ppts trivia questions > later asked to recall answers previously given
• FOUND > for quicker answers, ppts more likely to predict that they would later recall
• systematic relationship between speed and JOL > speed used as a cue
• opposite pattern found in objective memory performance > slower initial answer = more accurate later recall