Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Memory & Language > Metacognition > Flashcards

Metacognition Flashcards

1
Q

Inaccurate predictions caused by

A
  • Take perspective of one’s “future” self being tested
    • faulty mental model of how memory works
    • informative patterns of errors and associations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Monitoring

A

Keeping track of own learning and how well you’re learning
e.g. Judgements of Learning (JoLs) - ask people to make judgements as encoding new information and base it on/compare it to future performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Middle stages of metamemory/metacognition

A

Acquisition, retention, retrieval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Metamemory

A

In the real world, we frequently under uncertain conditions e.g. when we try to evaluate our own (imperfect) learning or predict future performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Control

A

Making changes to your study schedule as a result of monitoring outcomes/beliefs

What you do based on the outcome of these monitoring processes e.g. feel like you look at something and feel like you won’t remember it later on - make changes to schedule based on that introspection

The ability to evaluate own learning accurately

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

General method to study this - lab - study cue-target word pairs and provide a JOL for each pair

A

How likely will you recall this information later on from 1-7?
related pairs: doctor-nurse
unrelated pairs: coffee-nurse
(includes distractor task)
All tests provide target in response to cues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Are JoLs strong predictors of future performance?

A

Immediate JoLs show overconfidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Are metacognitive judgements directly affected by strength of memory trace?

A

NO - when asked to evaluate what we know - we make an inference based on a range of cues

Judgements based on CUES not strength of original memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

who did Cue Utilisation Framework?

A

KORIAT (97)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did Koriat say?

A

Higher accuracy if cues are consistent with factors that improve memory
We rely on multiple cues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Cues

A

INTRINSIC
EXTRINSIC
MNEMONIC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Intrinsic cues

A

A word’s inherent pre-existing ease of learning - relatability, imageability - STRONG INFLUENCE ON JOLs

More sensitive to item relatedness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Extrinsic cues

A

Conditions of learning or learner’s encoding operations
WEAKER INFLUENCE ON JOLs
we ignore encoding conditions/study time/processing levels manipulations/spacing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Mnemonic cues

A

Internal subjective idiosyncratic signals of learning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Intrinsic and extrinsic cues

A

Support analytical conscious inferences reflecting a person’s naive theories about learning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mnemonic cues

A

HEURISTICS - non-analytical processing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Cue utilisation

A

Learners UNDERESTIMATE value of extrinsic cues. We predict that “easy” material will be easier to remember than “hard” material regardless of amount of times practiced/exposed to it
underestimate practice/repetition effects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Cue utilisation e.g. Carroll (97)

A

Participants studied:
- related word pairs (“easy” pairs) - 2 recalls
- unrelated word pairs (“hard” pairs) - 8 recalls
Participants believed that they’d remember more easy pairs (their JoL) disregarding the power of extrinsic cues of study - no. of recalls

Final test performance was opposite to JoLs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Koriat (1997) - How do people monitor their knowledge during acquisition?

A

Cue utilisation approach
3 types of cues for judgements of learning
- intrinsic (item difficulty)
- extrinsic (recall, environment stimulus duration)
- mnemonic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Koriat (1997)

A

In 4 experiments, using paired-associate learning, item difficulty (intrinsic) exerted similar effects on JoL and recall.

Factors; list repetition, item repetition within a list and stimulus duration (extrinsic) affected JoLs LESS strongly than recalls
- underestimate extrinsic cues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Effects of practive

A

Saw a shift from reliance on intrinsic factors towards greater reliance on mnemonic-based heuristics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Koriat and Bjork (2006) - MNEMONIC CUES

A

tried out procedures to alleviate FORESIGHT BIAS

enhance learners sensitivity to mnemonic cues - resort to THEORY-BASED judgements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

JoLs underestimation in recall increase that occurs with repeated study (extrinsic cue) - what is this called?

A

underconfidence-with-practice effect (UWP)

24
Q

What does delaying JoLs do?

A

REDUCES debiasing effect of UWP

25
Q

Koriat study (1997) - effects of practice

A

One group were given one word list and tested twice
Other group were given one word list 1, tested once, then given list 2 and tested on list 2
Results: UNDERCONFIDENCE-WITH-PRACTICE
same condition (list 1) ppts who had JoL of 10% - recalled 30%
If you give ppts multiple chances to study material - they underestimate their abilities

26
Q

Underestimate abilities when manipulate/increase these extrinsic cues

A
  • number of study opportunities

- duration of study time

27
Q

Predicting one’s own forgetting - how well do you think you’ll do on an immediate test a DAY later and a WEEK later?

A

Results - striking difference between actual and predicted after day/week
People are OVERCONFIDENT in prediction

folk predicting low JoLs are under-confident (on average)
high JoLs are overconfident

28
Q

Predicting one’s own forgetting

A

Overconfident - insensitive to RETENTION INTERVAL

29
Q

Kornell & Bjork (2009)

A

Overestimating remembering - overconfident about retention and underestimate influence of time on forgetting

Underestimating learning - underconfidence-with-practice effects - effects of repetition and practice are underestimated

30
Q

Serra & Metcalfe (2009) - METACOGNITIVE ILLUSIONS

A

Effective implementation of metacognition

3 components of metacognition: Knowledge, Monitoring, Control

31
Q

Metacognitive illusions

A

Systematic ERRORS in metacognitive monitoring

32
Q

Why is metacognitive accuracy generally low?

A

Inferences based on cues/beliefs NOT heuristics/theoretical fact

33
Q

Heuristic definition

A

Enabling person to discover or learn something for themselves

34
Q

Metacognitive illusions

A
  1. Familiarity heuristic - perceptual fluency
  2. Retrieval fluency heuristic
  3. Current knowledge heuristic - hindsight bias
  4. Association heuristic - foresight bias
35
Q

Familiarity heuristic

A

We mistake familiarity/perceptual fluency for knowledge/comprehension
DECEPTIVE
- superficial
- does not predict retrievability accurately
- leads to people overestimating DEGREE OF MASTERY

36
Q

Familiarity study

A

Overall familiarity with a domain does not predict future performance accuracy
POORER JOL PREDICTIONS FROM EXPERTS IN A DISCIPLINE - ASSUME KNOWLEDGE COS FAMILIAR - more likely to misattribute familiarity to comprehension

Ex 2 - Boosting word’s accessibility via priming increases familiarity - increases error rates

Subliminal presentation of target before test - increases accessibility - higher false alarm rate

37
Q

Retrieval fluency

A

We believe fast/easy retrieval of information is knowledge
DECEPTIVE
Info easy to retrieve when you are given a cue can be more difficult to retrieve on FREE RECALL test
Effort, not retrieval fluency, predicts performance

increased awareness will decrease this illusion

38
Q

Retrieval fluency study

A

Benjamin et al (1998)
Ex1 - compare retrieval from semantic memory and episodic memory - base our judgements on the ease of retrieval from . semantic memory, underestimating episodic distinctiveness

Ex1 study: ppts answered questions about world events then made JoLs about later then FREE RECALL of all answers
Easy events (well known info stored in semantic memory)- fast memory search, so we believe this info will be easy to retrieve

Weak and less accessible episodic memory trace = poorer recall

Ex1 results - OPPOSITE TO PREDICTIONS - fast responses at study (indic. high retrieval fluency) –> poor recall at test, ppts mistakenly relied on ease of retrieval from semantic memory to predict performance

39
Q

Hindsight bias (“know it all”)

A

Fischoff (1975) - read stories of historical events and predict how likely the outcome of these events were in the past
results: OVERestimate past likelihood based on current knowledge

Jacob & Kelley (1987) - predict how difficult an anagram will be for OTHER PEOPLE
Predictions made whilst looking at answers or not
Results: Anagram rated easier when answers were available

40
Q

Foresight bias (Association)

A

Curse of knowledge - illusions of competence

When we study, we make predictions about the future performance based on LOCAL STUDY conditions

41
Q

Foresight bias (Association)

A

Curse of knowledge - illusions of competence
When we study, we make predictions about the future performance based on LOCAL STUDY conditions

Bjork & Koriat (2005) - study cue-target pairs (paired-associate learning) - items with different theoretical and observation relatedness (Ex 1) and different forward and backward associations (Ex 2)

Results: JoLs don’t distinguish between the two - people are over confident - actual recall vs. predicted for BACKWARDS associations = lower

42
Q

Immediate judgements - not accurate

A

Immediate JoLs are non-diagnostic (not accurate)

Judgements are made for info still in WORKING MEMORY thus very memorable

43
Q

Delayed judgements - more accurate

A

Delayed JoLs are more diagnostic

They often show UNDERconfidence - studies say they . are based on RETRIEVAL attempts

44
Q

Monitoring –> Control

A

Control: learner must manage learning by making number of assessments/decisions
Knowing what you know (JoLs)
Knowing what to study and re-study
Knowing when to stop studying

45
Q

Study: what we believe we know influences how we study (Metcalfe & Finn. 2008)

A

Self regulation: to optimise learning, study selectively - eliminate what you have learned and re-study “harder” material

46
Q

Study-time allocation - DISCREPANCY REDUCTION MODEL

A

Norm of study = desired level of learning (learning criterion)

When the goal is to learn as much as possible, you study the hard items to minimise the discrepancy between your learning criterion and actual learning level
(neg. correlation between JoLs and study time allocations - if you have higher JoL, you believe you know it well and thus allocate less time to re-study it

47
Q

REGION OF PROXIMAL LEARNING framework

A

You pick the items that you almost mastered –> highest payoff - stop studying when you feel like you are not making new progress (the stop rule)

48
Q

What about time pressure?

A

Short study time available - focus on “easy” items - items in region of PROXIMAL learning

Longer study time available - focus on “harder” items that’ll take longer to master

49
Q

Testing

A

Retrieval = learning

Information that is recalled is subsequently remembered better (but sometimes at the expense of non-recalled information; RIF). Thus, testing can modify the memory trace itself (Bjork, 1975).
But testing also has metacognitive benefits: it provides you with information about what you don’t know and reduces the foresight bias (Soderstorm & Bjork, 2014).
If you experience a retrieval failure, you can then modify your study strategies.
I.e., testing can drive subsequent learning (Roediger & Karpicke, 2008).

50
Q

Spacing effects

A

Spaced study episodes - better retention

Lag effect - longer lags - better retention
Increasing delays = . better learning
Retrieval failures provide important feedback
up to a point where longer intervals may mean more forgetting

51
Q

Spacing accounts

A

Accounts:

  1. Encoding variability: without spacing, the study context at S1 and S2 is very similar, so you consistently use the same retrieval cues to retrieve a specific memory. Each additional spaced study session increases the distinctiveness of the material and the cues.
    - MIX UP CUES
  2. Diminished processing: without spacing, you engage in less extensive processing at S2 than S1 (labour-in-vain effect: you haven’t forgotten what you learned at S1 yet, so additional studying doesn’t help).
    LABOUR IN VAIN
  3. Lack of diagnostic retrieval attempts: without spacing, you don’t engage in retrieval attempts that give insight into study success. You master a small set of cues and fall prey to the illusion of learning.
52
Q

Are students able to optimise learning?

A

Study with postal workers: Workers preferred massed schedule of practice
but spaced schedule more beneficial/showed strongest learning - another metacognitive illusion showing faulty mental model of human memory

53
Q

When re-studying and when given a choice about when to re-study, do students choose to space the material?

A

SPACING > MASSED STUDY

  1. When re-studying, 75% of participants choose to mass rather than space
  2. Participants predict better performance after massed than spaced study – possibly because massed study gives you the ILLUSION that processing gets easier over time
  3. Participants also prefer shorter to longer lags
  4. But with practice, participants begin to predict better performance after spacing
54
Q

Why do students prefer massed practice?

A

Massed practice gives you feeling of learning more quickly than spacing and thus more confidence in learning
Immediate tests - massed practice schedule leads to better memory performance
Delayed test - spaced practice schedule leads to better memory performance

55
Q

Desirable difficulties

A
  1. Varying the (cognitive, environmental) conditions of learning
    predictable conditions  contextualized learning
    variable conditions  more robust learning
  2. Spacing
    spacing enhances long-term retention
  3. Interleaving topics
    interleaving enhances learning of higher-level information
    (similarities and differences  increases transfer), requires re-
    loading information in memory, and this benefits long-term
    retention
  4. Using tests as study events
    a) the generation effect = generating an answer yourself results in
    better retention than being presented with an answer
    b) tests are retrieval practice, memory modifiers

Under these conditions, learners do not have a subjective sense of progress during training (they do not have illusions of competence). Yet, these conditions result in better long-term retention.

Participants “are apparently unaware that the more difficult or involved the process of retrieval, provided it succeeds, the greater its impact on subsequent recall” (Bjork, 1999, p.451)

Memory & Language (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions