Metacognition

Question 1

Inaccurate predictions caused by

Answer 1

• Take perspective of one’s “future” self being tested
• • faulty mental model of how memory works
• • informative patterns of errors and associations

Question 2

Monitoring

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Middle stages of metamemory/metacognition

Answer 3

Acquisition, retention, retrieval

Question 4

Metamemory

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Control

Answer 5

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

Question 6

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

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Are JoLs strong predictors of future performance?

Answer 7

Immediate JoLs show overconfidence

Question 8

Are metacognitive judgements directly affected by strength of memory trace?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

who did Cue Utilisation Framework?

Answer 9

KORIAT (97)

Question 10

What did Koriat say?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Cues

Answer 11

INTRINSIC
EXTRINSIC
MNEMONIC

Question 12

Intrinsic cues

Answer 12

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

More sensitive to item relatedness

Question 13

Extrinsic cues

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Mnemonic cues

Answer 14

Internal subjective idiosyncratic signals of learning

Question 15

Intrinsic and extrinsic cues

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Mnemonic cues

Answer 16

HEURISTICS - non-analytical processing

Question 17

Cue utilisation

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Cue utilisation e.g. Carroll (97)

Answer 18

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

Question 19

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

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Koriat (1997)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Effects of practive

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Koriat and Bjork (2006) - MNEMONIC CUES

Answer 22

tried out procedures to alleviate FORESIGHT BIAS

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

Question 23

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

Answer 23

underconfidence-with-practice effect (UWP)

Question 24

What does delaying JoLs do?

Answer 24

REDUCES debiasing effect of UWP

Question 25

Koriat study (1997) - effects of practice

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Underestimate abilities when manipulate/increase these extrinsic cues

Answer 26

- number of study opportunities | - duration of study time

Question 27

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

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Predicting one's own forgetting

Answer 28

Overconfident - insensitive to RETENTION INTERVAL

Question 29

Kornell & Bjork (2009)

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Serra & Metcalfe (2009) - METACOGNITIVE ILLUSIONS

Answer 30

Effective implementation of metacognition | 3 components of metacognition: Knowledge, Monitoring, Control

Question 31

Metacognitive illusions

Answer 31

Systematic ERRORS in metacognitive monitoring

Question 32

Why is metacognitive accuracy generally low?

Answer 32

Inferences based on cues/beliefs NOT heuristics/theoretical fact

Question 33

Heuristic definition

Answer 33

Enabling person to discover or learn something for themselves

Question 34

Metacognitive illusions

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Familiarity heuristic

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Familiarity study

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Retrieval fluency

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Retrieval fluency study

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Hindsight bias ("know it all")

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Foresight bias (Association)

Answer 40

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

Question 41

Foresight bias (Association)

Answer 41

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

Question 42

Immediate judgements - not accurate

Answer 42

Immediate JoLs are non-diagnostic (not accurate) | Judgements are made for info still in WORKING MEMORY thus very memorable

Question 43

Delayed judgements - more accurate

Answer 43

Delayed JoLs are more diagnostic | They often show UNDERconfidence - studies say they . are based on RETRIEVAL attempts

Question 44

Monitoring --> Control

Answer 44

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

Question 45

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

Answer 45

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

Question 46

Study-time allocation - DISCREPANCY REDUCTION MODEL

Answer 46

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

Question 47

REGION OF PROXIMAL LEARNING framework

Answer 47

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)

Question 48

What about time pressure?

Answer 48

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

Question 49

Testing

Answer 49

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).

Question 50

Spacing effects

Answer 50

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

Question 51

Spacing accounts

Answer 51

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.

Question 52

Are students able to optimise learning?

Answer 52

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

Question 53

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

Answer 53

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

Question 54

Why do students prefer massed practice?

Answer 54

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

Question 55

Desirable difficulties

Answer 55

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)