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.

[1]  R. Bjork,et al.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Judgments of Learning at Delays: Shifts in Response Patterns or Increased Metamemory Accuracy? , 1997 .

[3]  S. Lichtenstein,et al.  Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1 , 1977 .

[4]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. , 1994 .

[5]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Why investigate metacognition , 1994 .

[6]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Bennett L. Schwartz,et al.  The Inferential and Experiential Bases of Metamemory , 1997 .

[8]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Does the Sensitivity of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) to the Effects of Various Study Activities Depend on When the JOLs Occur , 1994 .

[9]  Lola L. Cuddy,et al.  Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation , 1969 .

[10]  A. Koriat,et al.  Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  When People's Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are Extremely Accurate at Predicting Subsequent Recall: The “Delayed-JOL Effect” , 1991 .

[12]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy. , 1997, Psychology and aging.

[14]  Barbara A. Spellman,et al.  When Predictions Create Reality: Judgments of Learning May Alter What They Are Intended to Assess , 1992 .

[15]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Enhanced metamemory at delays: why do judgments of learning improve over time? , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  J. Shaughnessy,et al.  Memory monitoring accuracy and modification of rehearsal strategies , 1981 .

[17]  E. Lovelace.  Metamemory: Monitoring Future Recallability During Study , 1984 .

[18]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Metacognition : knowing about knowing , 1994 .

[19]  R. Bjork,et al.  Metacognition in motor learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  A. Koriat.  Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .