When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning

Zhao, Wei; Li, Baike; Shanks, David R.; Zhao, Wenbo; Zheng, Jun; Hu, Xiao; Su, Ningxin; Yin, Yue; Yang, Chunliang

doi:10.1111/cdev.13689

Cited by 22 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly for the current research, together these findings suggest that JOL reactivity for word pairs depends on item relatedness. Further, other studies observed positive JOL reactivity for recall or recognition of single words (Double et al, 2018;Halamish, 2018;Senkova & Otani, 2021;Tekin & Roediger, 2020;Zhao et al, 2021) but no reactivity with educationally-relevant materials (Ariel et al, 2021). Given that JOL reactivity and its direction depend on the type of studied materials, it is imperative to examine the potential effect of JOLs on recall with various types of materials in order to develop a comprehensive theory of JOL reactivity (Myers et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments.

Halamish¹,

Undorf²

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has observed that monitoring one’s own learning modifies memory for some materials but not for others. Specifically, making judgments of learning (JOLs) while learning word pairs improves subsequent cued-recall memory performance for related word pairs but not for unrelated word pairs. Theories that have attempted to explain this pattern of results assume that people attend to and process cue-target relatedness during learning more when making JOLs than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. The present research directly tested this relatedness-processing assumption with unrelated and related word pairs as well as with hitherto unexamined materials: identical word pairs. In three experiments, participants studied word pairs while either making or not making JOLs. Results revealed that making JOLs improved memory for related word pairs as well as for identical word pairs, but not for unrelated word pairs. Importantly, in two of the experiments, participants were further asked to judge at test whether each cue appeared with an unrelated, related, or identical target before attempting to recall it. Results revealed that making JOLs improved the accuracy of these relatedness judgments independently from its effect on recall, thus providing direct evidence that people process cue-target relatedness when making JOLs more than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. These findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why judging one’s own learning can modify memory and, more broadly, suggest that instructions to monitor learning can direct people’s attention to information that is not or less processed otherwise.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments.

Halamish¹,

Undorf²

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mitchum et al (2016) proposed that making concurrent JOLs might borrow limited cognitive resources from the primary learning task, leading to a weaker encoding of temporal information. In addition, frequent task-switching between encoding and monitoring might also induce dual-task costs and lead to negative reactive influences (for related discussion, see Janes et al, 2018; Zhao et al, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent meta-analysis, Double et al (2018) found that making item-by-item JOLs significantly enhances memory for at least some types of materials 1 . For instance, previous studies found that eliciting JOLs facilitates retention of related word pairs and word lists (Soderstrom et al, 2015; Zhao et al, 2022), whereas it has minimal influence on memory for unrelated word pairs (Double et al, 2018) or text passages (Ariel et al, 2021). Other studies found that the reactivity effect occurs in young children (Zhao et al, 2022) as well as young adults, although making JOLs fails to facilitate older adults’ memory (Tauber & Witherby, 2019).…”

Section: Reactivity Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A set of previous studies has explored the reactivity effect on word list learning, and the documented findings suggest that the effect tends to be moderated by test format. For instance, previous studies showed that making JOLs substantially enhances recognition of word lists (Li et al, 2021; Yang et al, 2015; Zhao et al, 2022), whereas it has a minimal reactive influence on free recall (Stevens, 2019; Tauber & Rhodes, 2012).…”

Section: Reactivity Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, we identified eight studies eligible for the meta-analysis (Halamish, 2018; Senkova & Otani, 2021; Stevens, 2019; Tauber & Rhodes, 2012; Tekin & Roediger, 2020; Yang et al, 2015; Zechmeister & Shaughnessy, 1980; Zhao et al, 2022). In addition, the results from our Experiments 1–4 were also included.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metamemory judgments have dissociable reactivity effects on item and interitem relational memory.

Zhao¹,

Li²,

Shanks³

et al. 2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making metamemory judgments reactively changes item memory itself. Here we report the first investigation of reactive influences of making judgments of learning (JOLs) on interitem relational memoryspecifically, temporal (serial) order memory. Experiment 1 found that making JOLs impaired order reconstruction. Experiment 2 observed minimal reactivity on free recall and negative reactivity on temporal clustering. Experiment 3 demonstrated a positive reactivity effect on recognition memory, and Experiment 4 detected dissociable effects of making JOLs on order reconstruction (negative) and forced-choice recognition (positive) by using the same participants and stimuli. Finally, a meta-analysis was conducted to explore reactivity effects on word list learning and to investigate whether test format moderates these effects. The results show a negative reactivity effect on interitem relational memory (order reconstruction), a modest positive effect on free recall, and a medium-to-large positive effect on recognition. Overall, these findings imply that even though making metacognitive judgments facilitates item-specific processing, it disrupts relational processing, supporting the item-order account of the reactivity effect on word list learning.

show abstract

Effortful Tests and Repeated Metacognitive Judgments Enhance Future Learning

Davis,

Chan

2023

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning

Abstract: Wanlin Zhao and Baike Li contributed equally to the present study.The data contained in this project and the pre-registration of Experiment 2 are publicly available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf. io/7gcwp/.

Cited by 22 publications

References 71 publications

Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments.

Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments.

Metamemory judgments have dissociable reactivity effects on item and interitem relational memory.

Effortful Tests and Repeated Metacognitive Judgments Enhance Future Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About