Metacognitive judgments can potentiate new learning: The role of covert retrieval

Abstract

Interim tests of previously studied information can potentiate subsequent learning of new information, in part, because retrieval-based processes help to reduce proactive interference from previously learned information. We hypothesized that an effect similar to this forward testing effect would also occur when making judgments of (prior) learning (JOLs). Previous research showed that making JOLs likely prompts covert retrieval attempts and thereby enhances memory, specifically when providing only parts of previously studied information. This study examined the forward effect of different types of JOLs (i.e., with complete or partial prior study information available) on subsequent learning of new materials, compared to restudy and retrieval practice. In a between-subjects design, participants (N = 161) consecutively studied five lists of 20 words with the aim to recall as many of them on a final cumulative recall test. After the presentation of each of the first four lists, participants either restudied the list, made JOLs with complete words, made JOLs with word stems, or they were tested on word stems. Compared to restudy, practicing retrieval and making JOLs with word stems, but not JOLs with complete words, facilitated the List-5 interim recall performance and attenuated the number of intrusions from prior lists. The findings suggest that, similar to overt retrieval, making JOLs with incomplete information can enhance new learning to the extent that it elicits covert retrieval attempts.

Optimizing multiple-choice questions for retrieval practice: Delayed display of answer alternatives enhances vocabulary learning.

“…Another relevant question for follow-up research is how our manipulation influenced the processing of the answer options and feedback presented. Retrieval processes (including uninstructed covert retrieval) can enhance not only the retention of the practiced information but also subsequent studying of learned and new information (e.g., Kubik, Koslowski, et al, 2022). Therefore, benefits of the stepwise display and/or competitive answer options, may to some extent be driven by learners’ enhanced processing of answer options and feedback presented after the retrieval opportunity (so-called test-potentiated encoding or indirect testing effects, e.g., Arnold & McDermott, 2013).…”

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

“…Following previous JOL reactivity studies (Kubik et al 2022;Li et al 2023Li et al , 2024, the current experiment employed a within-subjects design (JOL vs. no-JOL). Participants were informed that they would study four lists of words in preparation for a later memory test.…”

The Forward Effect of Delayed Judgments of Learning Is Influenced by Difficulty in Memory and Category Learning

“… Jönsson et al ( 2012 ) suggested that this facilitation is related to the covert retrieval attempts of the target information resulting from the delayed JOL, which itself facilitates learning and is often referred to as the retrieval practice effect ( McDaniel et al 2007 ; Karpicke and Roediger 2008 ; Carpenter et al 2008 ; Hausman and Rhodes 2018 ). In other words, when individuals make metacognitive judgments, they engage in covert retrieval attempts to predict their own test performance ( Kubik et al 2022 ). Thus, compared to restudy, one of the most common learning strategies without any item retrieval, delayed JOL can more effectively promote learners’ memory for learned items.…”

“…The current research focuses on the forward effects of delayed JOL, which are receiving increasing attention as an indirect but future-oriented benefit of delayed JOL. Recent studies have found that delayed JOL not only promotes the retention of previously learned information, but also has a positive effect on the subsequent learning of new material ( Lee and Ha 2019 ; Kubik et al 2022 ). To examine the forward effect of JOL, methods were developed based on the paradigm of the forward test effect (FTE).…”

“…To examine the forward effect of JOL, methods were developed based on the paradigm of the forward test effect (FTE). In this approach, the material to be memorized is divided into several separate learning blocks (e.g., Szpunar et al 2008 ; Sohlberg et al 2021 ; Kubik et al 2022 ), and participants are divided into at least two groups: a delayed JOL group and a control group. The JOL group undergoes the metacognitive assessment after each individual study block, while the control group often restudies the content a second time.…”