Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance.

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy-cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.

Test Experience, Direct Instruction, and Their Combination Promote Accurate Beliefs about the Testing Effect.

Practice testing is a highly robust learning strategy that promotes long-term retention, especially in comparison to more passive strategies such as restudying-a finding referred to as the testing effect. However, learners do not always appreciate the memorial benefits of practice testing over restudying, which could limit their use of practice testing during self-regulated learning. The current investigation explored the extent to which learners' metacognitive judgments about the testing effect can be improved via test experience, direct instruction, or a combination of both techniques. Prolific participants underwent two learning cycles. In the first cycle, participants were randomly assigned to either (a) experience a testing effect in their own memory performance (i.e., study unrelated word pairs, practice half the pairs through restudying and half through testing with correct-answer feedback, complete a critical test on the pairs, and receive feedback regarding their performance after using each strategy); (b) imagine they had to learn word pairs and read a passage on the purported benefits of practice testing; or (c) undergo both procedures. In the second cycle, all participants learned a novel set of word pairs. Across both learning cycles, participants estimated memory performance for material learned through testing versus restudying. Both test experience and direct instruction-independently and in combination-led to more accurate memory estimates across learning cycles, but no technique was more effective than the other. In summary, people can learn about the memorial benefits of practice testing when they experience a testing effect on their own memory performance and/or when they receive instruction about its benefits.

Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items.

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem - Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja - Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Metacognitive awareness of the pretesting effect improves with self-regulation support.

The pretesting or prequestion effect refers to the counterintuitive finding that taking tests on information that one has yet to learn, during which many erroneous responses typically occur, can benefit learning relative to nontesting methods (e.g., reading) if the correct answers are studied afterwards. Using a knowledge updating approach that entailed two or three cycles of pretesting versus reading followed by a criterial test, we investigated (a) the extent to which learners develop metacognitive awareness of the pretesting effect through experience (as evidenced by predictions of criterial test performance) and (b) three forms of external support-namely, performance feedback (displaying criterial test performance for pretested versus read items), prediction reminders (displaying learners' predictions alongside performance feedback), and recall prompts (asking learners to remember criterial test performance during the first cycle prior to making predictions for the second cycle)-that might improve, or provide insights into, such awareness. Across five experiments, we found that learners generally lack awareness of the memorial benefits of pretesting, are predisposed to believing that reading is more effective even after repeatedly experiencing both techniques, and need support before they recognize that pretesting is more beneficial. Overall, these results underscore the challenge of, and highlight several means of dislodging, learners' inaccurate beliefs about the efficacy of pretesting.

What constrains people's ability to learn about the testing effect through task experience?

What constrains people's ability to learn from experience about the effectiveness of practice testing versus restudying for memory (i.e., the testing effect)? Across two cycles, participants studied word pairs, practiced each pair through either restudying or testing, predicted how many pairs they would recall for each strategy, then completed a critical test on the pairs. During this test, participants either received feedback about the number of pairs they had correctly recalled or made postdictions about their performance for each strategy (i.e., generated their own feedback). During both cycles, participants predicted they would recall an equivalent number of tested and restudied pairs, although they actually recalled more tested pairs. However, when participants experienced a larger testing effect, they estimated recall performance more accurately for each strategy and updated their knowledge about the testing effect. Thus, peoples' ability to learn from experience about the testing effect is primarily constrained not by a failure to initiate the metacognitive processes required to monitor and track recall performance by strategy, but by the metacognitive burden of discriminating between small differences in recall between tested versus restudied material. In summary, people can learn from experience about the testing effect when the metacognitive burden is lifted.

Investigating memory reactivity with a within-participant manipulation of judgments of learning: support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

When learners make judgments of learning (JOLs) for some word pairs but not others, how and why is recall performance affected? Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for a randomly selected half of the pairs. We evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in pair difficulty and to change their learning goal. Because JOLs are manipulated within participants, such a goal change should influence how all (judged or non-judged) pairs are processed on the list, which should lead to no JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity (i.e., higher recall for judged versus non-judged pairs) for related than unrelated pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the two words in a pair, which would be more beneficial for pairs with an a priori relationship. Across experiments, we found positive reactivity for both related and unrelated pairs (albeit to a lesser degree for the latter). We also found no evidence that learners make qualitative changes in their reported strategy use when judging pairs. Making JOLs for some pairs on a list influenced memory performance and the pattern of reactivity provided support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Are test-expectancy effects better explained by changes in encoding strategies or differential test experience?

Prior research has investigated whether learners spontaneously adapt their encoding strategies in anticipation of particular test formats (i.e., the encoding-strategy adaptation hypothesis; Finley & Benjamin, 2012). However, the strongest evidence supporting this hypothesis is confounded with test experience (as argued by Cho & Neely, 2017). When learners gain equal experience with each test format, do they adapt their encoding strategy use? Across 3 experiments, participants studied lists of cue-target word pairs and after each list completed either a cued-recall test (recall targets given cues) or a free-recall test (recall targets only). Participants received equal experience with each test format. On a final critical test, participants either received a test in a format they expected or one that violated their expectations. On this critical test, participants who received a test they expected outperformed those who did not, and this was true for both cued and free recall. Also, a manipulation of cue-target associative strength had a greater effect on cued-recall tests than free-recall tests (Experiment 1), whereas a manipulation of target-target associative strength had a greater influence on free-recall tests than cued-recall tests (Experiments 2 and 3). These findings, along with divergent patterns of self-reported strategy use for the 2 anticipated test formats, support the encoding-strategy adaptation hypothesis. In particular, learners tend to use more cue-target associative strategies when expecting a cued-recall test, and more target-focused strategies when expecting a free-recall test. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring Metacognitive Knowledge, Monitoring, and Control in the Pharmacy Classroom and Experiential Settings.

Objective. To provide a user's guide on measuring metacognition in authentic contexts so that educators and researchers can explore students' metacognition with an aim towards improving their students' metacognitive processes and achievement. Findings. Metacognition can be measured in a variety of ways depending on whether the interest is knowledge, monitoring, or control. These methods include surveys, assessment of student predictions versus their performance on examinations, or investigating students' decisions during their learning process. Summary. Metacognition refers to people's knowledge about and regulation of their cognitive processes. These aspects of metacognition are important for supporting students' success in academic and experiential settings. In particular, students who recognize successful learning strategies can accurately monitor their own progress and make effective study decisions that are more likely to help them meet their learning goals. Thus, measuring metacognitive knowledge, monitoring, and control can help educators identify struggling students who may benefit from interventions to improve their metacognitive processes.

The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance: Positive, negative, or both?

A common measure of memory monitoring--judgments of learning (JOLs)--has recently been shown to have reactive effects on learning. When participants study a list of related and unrelated word pairs, they recall more related than unrelated pairs. This relatedness effect is larger when people make JOLs than when they do not make them. Evidence is mixed concerning whether this increased relatedness effect arises because JOLs help memory for related pairs, hurt it for unrelated pairs, or do both. In three experiments, we investigated (1) the nature of the increased relatedness effect (i.e., does it arise from positive reactivity for related pairs, negative reactivity for unrelated pairs, or both?) and (2) the mechanisms underlying the effect. Participants studied cue-target word pairs and either did (or did not) make immediate JOLs and then completed a cued-recall test. When participants studied a mixed list consisting of related and unrelated pairs, the increased relatedness effect was largely driven by positive reactivity. When participants studied pure lists consisting solely of related or unrelated word pairs (Experiment 2 only), the increased relatedness effect was minimized. These and other findings suggest that making JOLs helps learning more than hurts it, and that this reactive effect partly occurs because making JOLs changes people's learning goals.