The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension

Previous research suggests that when participants engage in generative study activities, the processing of text is enhanced and improvements in memory and metacomprehension result. However, few studies have investigated the influence of processes required by the testing situation or the interaction between encoding and retrieval processes on metacomprehension accuracy. The present experiments examine whether the congruency of processes generated during study and required at retrieval affect memory, metacomprehension, and control processes. Study orientation and test type were congruent (i.e., letter-reinsertion: detailed test), incongruent (i.e., letter-reinsertion: conceptual test), or neutral (i.e., read: conceptual test). After generative study, but before testing, participants made metacomprehension predictions for previously studied texts. Controlled strategy selection was measured in Experiment 2. When processes at study and test were congruent, cued recall performance and metacomprehension predictions were more accurate than when study and test were incongruent. For incongruent conditions, metacomprehension predictions were no better than chance; thus, controlled strategy selection was based on inaccurate metacomprehension, thereby further penalizing memory performance relative to congruent conditions. These findings extend a transfer-appropriate processing framework to metacomprehension.

[1]  William L. Cull,et al.  The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners? , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[2]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension , 1990 .

[3]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension , 1990 .

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

[5]  G Mazzoni,et al.  Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? , 1990, Memory & cognition.

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

[7]  R. Zacks.  Invariance of total learning time under different conditions of practice. , 1969 .

[8]  Keith W. Thiede,et al.  Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy , 2003 .

[9]  Yadin Dudai,et al.  Science of memory: concepts , 2007 .

[10]  George Kellas,et al.  Effect of response requirement and type of material on acquisition and retention performance in short-term memory , 1971 .

[11]  M. McDaniel,et al.  What makes folk tales unique: content familiarity, causal structure, scripts, or superstructures? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension , 1982 .

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

[14]  David J. Therriault,et al.  Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. , 2003 .

[15]  Similarity between the Cue for Judgments of Learning (JOL) and the Cue for Test Is Not the Primary Determinant of JOL Accuracy , 1997 .

[16]  R H Maki,et al.  Metacomprehension of text material. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

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

[19]  Ian Begg,et al.  Memory predictions are based on ease of processing , 1989 .

[20]  James S. Nairne,et al.  Generation Effects With Nonwords : The Role of Test Appropriateness , 2001 .

[21]  Harry Singer,et al.  Theoretical models and processes of reading , 1976 .

[22]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Thomas Sanocki,et al.  Enhancing Calibration of Comprehension , 1987 .

[24]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[25]  L. E. Bourne,et al.  Remembering the levels of information in words , 1978 .

[26]  Cesare Cornoldi,et al.  Strategies in study time allocation: Why is study time sometimes not effective? , 1993 .

[27]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  A Procedural Explanation of the Generation Effect: The Use of an Operand Retrieval Strategy for Multiplication and Addition Problems , 1995 .

[28]  Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. , 2000 .

[29]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Older and younger adults use a functionally identical algorithm to select items for restudy during multitrial learning. , 1997, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[30]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[31]  Guy Denhière,et al.  Regulation of study-time and interstimulus similarity in self-paced learning conditions , 1972 .

[32]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory ☆ , 1988 .

[33]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning , 1994 .

[34]  R. Bjork.  Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[35]  J. Flavell.  Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[36]  Earl C. Butterfield,et al.  Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies , 1971 .

[37]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  The basis of test predictions for text material. , 1992 .

[38]  Arthur M. Glenberg,et al.  Calibration of comprehension. , 1985 .

[39]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Processing similarity does not improve metamemory: evidence against transfer-appropriate monitoring. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  Material Appropriate Difficulty: A Framework for Determining When Difficulty Is Desirable for Improving Learning. , 2005 .

[41]  J. S. Nairne,et al.  Generation Effects With Nonwords: The Role of Test Appropriateness , 1987 .

[42]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  T. Blaxton.  Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. , 1989 .

[44]  T. Vecchi,et al.  Remembering the Grocery Shopping List: a Study on Metacognitive Biases , 1997 .

[45]  Études sur l'étude: l'effet de position dans un apprentissage intentionnel de série , 1969 .

[46]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect". , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.