Judgments of learning are influenced by multiple cues in addition to memory for past test accuracy.

Abstract

General Abstract When people try to learn new information (e.g., in a school setting), they often have multiple opportunities to study the material. One of the most important things to know is whether people adjust their study behavior on the basis of past success so as to increase their overall level of learning (for example, by emphasizing information they have not yet learned). Monitoring their learning is a key part of being able to make those kinds of adjustments. We used a recognition memory task to replicate prior research showing that memory for past test outcomes influences later monitoring, as measured by judgments of learning (JOLs; confidence that the material has been learned), but also to show that subjective confidence in whether the test answer and the amount of time taken to restudy the items also have independent effects on JOLs. We also show that there are individual differences in the effects of test accuracy and test confidence on JOLs, showing that some but not all people use past test experiences to guide monitoring of their new learning. Monitoring learning is therefore a complex process of considering multiple cues, and some people attend to those cues more effectively than others. Improving the quality of monitoring performance and learning could lead to better study behaviors and better learning. An individual’s memory of past test performance (MPT) is often cited as the primary cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) following test experience during multi-trial learning tasks (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007; 2008). We used an associative recognition task to evaluate MPT-related phenomena, because performance monitoring, as measured by recognition test confidence judgments (CJs), is fallible and varies in accuracy across persons. The current study used multilevel regression models to show the simultaneous and independent influences of multiple cues on Trial 2 JOLs, in addition to performance accuracy (the typical measure of MPT in cued-recall experiments). These cues include recognition CJs, perceived recognition fluency, and Trial 2 study time allocation (an index of reprocessing fluency). Our results expand the scope of MPT-related phenomena in recognition memory testing to show independent effects of recognition test accuracy and CJs on second-trial JOLs, while also demonstrating individual differences in the effects of these cues on JOLs (as manifested in significant random effects for those regression effects in the model). The effect of study time on second-trial JOLs controlling on other variables, including Trial 1 recognition memory accuracy, also demonstrates that second-trial encoding behavior influence JOLs in addition to MPT.

The influence of perceptual information on control processes involved in self-regulated learning: evidence from item selection

“…These results also suggest that people might use multiple cues when making study item selection. This is in line with findings that people incorporate information about multiple cues when making judgments of learning (e.g., Hertzog, Hines, & Touron, 2013;Serra & Ariel, 2014;Tauber & Rhodes, 2012).…”

“…As mentioned before, this is consistent with the observation that JOLs are influenced by multiple cues (e.g., Hertzog, Hines, & Touron, 2013;Serra & Ariel, 2014;Tauber & Rhodes, 2012). This works stemmed from the cue-utilization framework (Koriat, 1997), which posits that people use three types of cues (intrinsic, extrinsic and mnemonic) when making JOLs.…”

Younger and older adults weigh multiple cues in a similar manner to generate judgments of learning

“…Most of the existing literature has focused on either one or a small set of potential cues. A multiple-cue utilization perspective (Hertzog, Hines, & Touron, 2013) argues that people can and do access and use multiple cues when making JOLs, although the likelihood of accessing multiple cues during the judgment process will be influenced by factors such as motivation, ability, fatigue, item difficulty, and the capacity of attention and working memory. Certainly, not all available cues are accessed and used when making JOLs.…”

“…An important JOL cue in multi-trial learning tasks (involving more than one study-test trial) is memory-for-past-test performance (MPT; Ariel & Dunlosky, 2011; Finn & Metcalfe, 2007; 2008; Hertzog, Hines, & Touron, 2013; Serra & Ariel, 2014; Tauber & Rhodes, 2012). JOLs made after the first test are typically strongly related to MPT, which has been argued to seed a MPT heuristic (“if I remembered it before, I’ll remember it again”; Finn & Metcalfe, 2007).…”

“…Hertzog, Hines, and Touron (2013) used multilevel modeling procedures (Snijders & Bosker, 2012) to show explicitly that encoding fluency was a source of enhanced JOL-memory correlations at a second study trial, in addition to other cues. As expected from the MPT literature studying associative cued recall, Trial 2 JOLs were strongly influenced by prior recognition memory accuracy or success (the index of MPT).…”