A Revised Methodology for Research on Metamemory: Pre-judgment Recall And Monitoring (PRAM).

Abstract

A revised methodology is described for research on metacognitive monitoring, especially judgments of learning (JOLs), to investigate psychological processing that previously has been only hypothetical and unobservable. During data collection a new stage of recall occurs just prior to the JOL, so that during data analysis the items can be partitioned into subcategories to measure the degree of JOL accuracy in ways that are more analytic than was previously possible. A weighted-average combinatorial rule allows the component measures of JOL accuracy to be combined into the usual overall measure of metacognitive accuracy. An example using the revised methodology offers a new explanation for the delayed-JOL effect, in which delayed JOLs are more accurate than immediate JOLs for predicting recall.

Delayed judgments of learning cause both a decrease in absolute accuracy (calibration) and an increase in relative accuracy (resolution)

“…However, the mean G RN for JOL5 items and JOL50 items did not differ significantly (t 1), probably because of a ceiling effect due to nearperfect JOL accuracy in those two conditions. These results replicate and extend the results from Nelson et al (2004), who found that G RN was greater for delayed JOLs than for immediate JOLs.…”

“…To minimize errors due to incorrect spelling, a response was scored as correct if the first four letters were correct (see Nelson et al, 2004). An alpha of .01 was used for all reported analyses, unless noted differently.…”

“…The mean gamma on all items, regardless of whether they were recalled during pre-JOL recall, is designated G.. (following Nelson et al, 2004) and is shown for each of the three levels of JOL delay in the first column of Nelson and Dunlosky (1991) and Kelemen and Weaver (1997), who used the traditional (nonPRAM) methodology.…”

“…), to which the participant was assumed to try to covertly recall the target item (e.g., TREE) before making a JOL rating. To eliminate this recall assumption, Nelson, Narens, and Dunlosky (2004) modified the methodology. Called prejudgment recall and monitoring, or PRAM, their methodology involves inserting a test trial (typically, cued recall) immediately prior to a JOL trial.…”

“…Using PRAM, Nelson et al (2004) discovered that relative accuracy of JOLs, calculated for only the items that were recalled correctly at the time of the JOL, was only slightly greater for delayed JOLs than for immediate JOLs. This finding is in stark contrast to the substantial increase in relative accuracy observed when recalled and nonrecalled items are pooled together.…”