Empirical analysis of the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs.

: A. Koriat's (1997) cue-utilization framework provided a significant advance in understanding how people make judgments of learning (JOLs). A major distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic cues. JOLs are predicted to be sensitive to intrinsic cues (e.g., item relatedness) and less sensitive to extrinsic cues (e.g., serial position) because JOLs are comparative across items in a list. The authors evaluated predictions by having people make JOLs after studying either related (poker-flush) or unrelated (dog-spoon) items. Although some outcomes confirmed these predictions, others could not be readily explained by the framework. Namely, relatedness influenced JOLs even when manipulated between participants, primacy effects were evident on JOLs, and the order in which blocks of items were presented (either all related items first or all unrelated items first) influenced JOLs. The authors discuss the framework in relation to these and other outcomes.

[1]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Fluency of retrieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): An analytic or nonanalytic basis for JOLs? , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[5]  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 .

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

[7]  N. Charness,et al.  Memory knowledge and memory monitoring in adulthood. , 1994, Psychology and aging.

[8]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory , 1990 .

[9]  I. Begg,et al.  Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[10]  F. Craik,et al.  Aging and metamemory: the roles of relatedness and imagery. , 1982, Journal of gerontology.

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

[12]  B. Brooks.  Primacy and recency in primed free association and associative cued recall , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[14]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[15]  K. Thiede.  The Relative Importance of Anticipated Test Format and Anticipated Test Difficulty on Performance , 1996 .

[16]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Effect of overlearning on the feeling of knowing is more detectable in within-subject than in between-subject designs. , 1993, The American journal of psychology.

[18]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Aging and monitoring associative learning: is monitoring accuracy spared or impaired? , 2002 .

[19]  T. O. Nelson.  Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings , 1990 .

[20]  G. Keren.  Calibration and probability judgements: Conceptual and methodological issues , 1991 .

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

[22]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

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

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

[25]  Eugene B. Zechmeister,et al.  Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval practice. , 1980 .

[26]  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 .

[27]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Tradeoff of semantic relatedness and degree of overlearning: differential effects on metamemory and on long-term retention. , 1997, Acta psychologica.

[28]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: a componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[29]  P. C. Price,et al.  Judgmental overshadowing: Further evidence of cue interaction in contingency judgment , 1993, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[32]  E. Clark,et al.  Is perceptual salience needed in explanations of the isolation effect? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.