When people begin to study new material, they may first judge how difficult it will be to learn. Surprisingly, these ease of learning (EOL) judgments have received little attention by metacognitive researchers so far. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate how well EOL judgments can predict actual learning, and what factors may moderate their relative accuracy. In three experiments, undergraduate psychology students made EOL judgments on, then studied, and were tested on, lists of word-pairs (e.g., sunwarm). In Experiment 1, the Goodman-Kruskal gamma (G) correlations showed that EOL judgments were accurate (G = .74) when items varied enough in difficulty to allow for proper discrimination between them, but were less accurate (G = .21) when variation was smaller. Furthermore, in Experiment 1 and 3, we showed that the relative accuracy was reliably higher when the EOL judgments were correlated with a binary criterion (i.e., if an item was recalled or not on a test), compared with a trials-to-learn criterion (i.e., how many study and test trials were needed to recall an item). In addition, Experiments 2 and 3 indicate other factors to be non-influential for EOL accuracy, such as the task used to measure the EOL judgments, and whether items were judged sequentially (i.e., one item at a time in isolation from the other items) or simultaneously (i.e., each item was judged while having access to all other items). To conclude, EOL judgments can be highly accurate (G = .74) and may thus be of strategic importance for learning. Further avenues for research are discussed.Learning is a central part of everyday life, for example studying a history book for an upcoming exam, learning a new language (e.g., glossary lists), practicing to use a machine at work, or how to operate a new smartphone. One of the first things you may do when you are Metacognition Learning (2017) 12:337-355
Processing fluency influences many types of judgments. Some metacognitive research suggests that the influence of processing fluency may be mediated by participants' beliefs. The current study explores the influence of processing fluency and beliefs on ease-of-learning (EOL) judgments. In two experiments (Exp 1: n = 94; Exp 2: n = 146), participants made EOL judgments on 24 six-letter concrete nouns, presented in either a constant condition (high fluency) with upper-case letters (e.g., BUCKET) or an alternating condition (low fluency) with mixed upper- and lower-case letters (e.g., bUcKeT). After judging words individually, participants studied the words and completed a free recall test. Finally, participants indicated what condition they believed made the words more likely to be learned. Results show constant-condition words were judged as more likely to be learned than alternating condition words, but the difference varied with beliefs. Specifically, the difference was biggest when participants believed the constant condition made words more likely to be learned, followed by believing there was no difference, and then believing the alternating condition made words more likely to be learned. Thus, we showed that processing fluency has a direct effect on EOL judgments, but the effect is moderated by beliefs.
When making memory predictions (judgments of learning; JOLs), people typically underestimate the recall gain across multiple study–test cycles, termed the underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect. This is usually studied with verbal materials, but little is known about how people repeatedly learn and monitor their own actions and to what extent retrieval practice via interim tests influence the progression of JOLs across cycles. Using action phrases (i.e., squeeze the lemon) as learning material, we demonstrated the UWP effect after both verbal and enactive encoding, although we did not get first-cycle overconfidence. As predicted, participants exhibited underconfidence in Cycles 2 and 3, as an error of calibrations. However, people’s resolution of JOLs (i.e., ability to discriminate recalled from unrecalled items) increased across study–test cycles. Importantly, JOLs for study–test (relative to study–study) items increased faster across cycles suggesting that repeated study–test practice not only produces underconfidence across cycles, but also reduces underconfidence relative to study–study practice. We discuss these findings in terms of current explanations of the underconfidence-with-practice effect.
The study investigates how psychological and social factors relate to productive collocation knowledge in late L2 learners of Swedish (French L1) (N = 59). The individual factors are language aptitude (measured through the LLAMA aptitude test), reported language use, social networks, acculturation, and personality. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that positive effects were found for LLAMA D (phonetic memory), LLAMA E (sound-symbol correspondence), reported language use, and length of residence (LOR). Furthermore, a negative effect was found for the personality variable Open-mindedness. These variables explained 63% (adjusted R²) of the variance, which represents large effects compared to other studies on individual factors. In sum, the findings confirm earlier results on the importance of language aptitude and language use for productive collocation knowledge. They also add evidence of the importance of personality and LOR. In sum, cognitive and social factors combine to explain different outcomes in adult L2 acquisition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.