The Influence of Retrieval Practice Versus Delayed Judgments of Learning on Memory
Resolving a Memory-Metamemory Paradox
Abstract
Abstract. The positive effect of delayed retrieval practice on subsequent test performance is robust; by contrast, making delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) encourages covert retrieval but has a minor influence on final test performance. In three experiments, we experimentally established and explored this memory-metamemory paradox. After initial study of paired associates (e.g., husky – ram), participants either were explicitly tested (husky – ?) or made a JOL. In Experiment 1, we adopted the standard JOL method, using a short retention interval, whereas in Experiments 2 and 3, we used a common testing-effect method involving a longer retention interval. Delayed JOLs did not boost test performance, but explicit delayed tests boosted memory after a longer retention interval. As important, participants spent less time to make JOLs than to retrieve responses. These data indicate that differences in the dynamics of retrieval for practice tests versus delayed JOLs are responsible for the paradox.
References
(2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
(2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563–1569. doi: 10.1037/a0017021
(2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140
(2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34, 268–276. doi: 10.1037/a0017021
(2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 826–830. doi: 10.3758/BF03194004
(2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
(1996). Expanding understanding of the expanding-pattern-of-retrieval mnemonic: Toward confidence in applicability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 365–378. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.2.4.365
(2013). Improving students learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266
(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
(2012). The testing effect as a function of explicit testing instructions and judgments of learning. Experimental Psychology, 59, 251–257. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000150
(2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002
(1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490. doi: 10.3758/BF03210951
(1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109
(1991). When people’s judgements of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect”. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270. doi: 10.111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00147
(1992). How shall we explain the delayed-judgment-of-learning effect? Psychological Science, 3, 317–318.
(2004). A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment recall and monitoring (PRAM). Psychological Methods, 9, 53–69. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.53
(2012). Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect? Memory & Cognition, 41, 36–48. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0245-x
(2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023956
(2011a). The influence of delaying Judgements of Learning (JOLs) on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148. doi: 10.1037/a0021705
(2011b). Monitoring memory errors: The influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning. Memory, 19, 853–870. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2011.613841
(2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
(2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
(2005). A model for stochastic drift in memory strength to account for judgments of learning. Psychological Review, 112, 932–950. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.932
(2013). Covert retrieval practice benefits retention as much as overt retrieval practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1712–1725. doi: 10.1037/a0033569
(2014, 12, 22). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0038388
(2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1116–1129. doi: 10.3758/BF03193217
(1992). When predictions create reality: Judgments of learning may alter what they are intended to assess. Psychological Science, 5, 315–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00680.x
(2009). The testing effect and the retention interval. Experimental Psychology, 56, 252–257. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252
(2011). Predicting memory performance under conditions of proactive interference: Immediate and delayed judgements of learning. Memory & Cognition, 39, 827–838. doi: 10.3758/s13421-010-0065-9
