Self-regulated learning

Question 1

How does metammeory guide the online control of memory versus the strategic control of learning according to Hart?

Answer 1

Online control - helps at time of retrieval e.g., not expend useless effort trying to retrieve if metacogntive cues suggest not in storage. Control of learning - helps at time of encoding e.g., notn redunendatly input information already procesed in memory.

Question 2

What is a JOL?

Answer 2

Prediction of whether will remember something later made at time of encoding/learning.

Question 3

Who introduced JOL and what did they find?

Answer 3

Aruckle and Cuddy (1969) - gave JOL on letter number pairs, tested to recall numbers given letters, recall significantly better for pairs predicted would recall than predicted would forget, not perfect but above chance

Question 4

JOL versus FOK

Answer 4

JOL = made at time of encoding/when new info in, “Will I remember this later?”
FOK = made at time of retrieval/when request to retrieve newly learnt info, “How well do I know this? Would I recognise the answer if I saw it?”

Question 5

There isn’t good support for the direct access hypothesis with FOKs, what about JOL?

Answer 5

Not direct access. Rhodes and Tauber 2011 metanalysis found mean G of about 0.42 suggesting not direct acess but access to JOLs which are imperfect predictors

Question 6

What two factors affect JOLs? Which studies show them?

Answer 6

Fluency of the learning experience
- Benhamin et al. 1998 - how quickly/easily something comes to mind initially
- Rhodes and Castel 2008 - font size, how quickly/easily can read/take in information
-Begg et al. 1989 - frequency
Zechmeister and Sahugnessy 1980 - spacing of learning trials, massed versus distributed practice
Time of JOL judgement
- Nelson and Dunlosky 1991- immediate or delayed JOL

Question 7

Do JOLs accurately predict recall?

Answer 7

JOLs don’t predict recall. Dissociations between predictions and memory performance when asked how likely to remember answers given to trivia questions (Benjamin et al 1998), Fluency affects JOLs and recall differently (Rhodes and Castel 2008 font size affected JOL but not recall, Begg et al 1989 greater JOL but lwoer recall with greater frequency). Nelson et al. 1994

Question 8

Are JOLs helpful for learning? Give evidence from non-classroom studies

Answer 8

Yes. Imperfect predictors but can soemtimes be very accurate (Nelson and Dunlosky 1991 .90 accuracy if delayed)
Help to learn strategically - Metcalfe 2002 predict allocation of study time
- Hancasowski et al. 2014 predict restudy choice
Metacognitive strategic learning improves recall
-Nelson et al 1994 - better recall when restudy based on JOLs
Metacogntive skills predict memory
Thiede 199 - memory better in those with more accurate JOLs and restudy choices more aligned with JOLs

Question 9

Are JOLs helpful for learning? Give evidence from classroom studies.

Answer 9

Metacognition correlates with achievement
Hartwig and Dunlosky 2012 - high performing students use better learning strategies e.g., testing, spaced practice
Hacker et al. 2000 - high performing students predict test scores better (gap between prediction and attainment for psychology students lessened with increased attainment)

Question 10

Explain Rhodes and Tauber 2011

Answer 10

Conducted meta analysis on JOLs, found a mean G of about 0.42, shows that don’t have direct access as imperfect but do have access to something as not zero, JOLs are imperfect predictors

Question 11

Explain Benjamin et al. 1998

Answer 11

Asked how likely to remember answers given to trivia questions later without being re-asked the questions. Greater JOL the faster an initial answer came to mind but lower recall. Shows a dissociation between predictions and memory performance, shows that if learning feels fluent predict remember it.

Question 12

Explain Rhodes and Castel 2008

Answer 12

Tested JOLs and recall of words, manipulated font. Greater JOL if larger/easier to read font but recall about the same. JOLs vary with fluency but not recall. perceptual fleuncy

Question 13

Explain Begg et al 1989

Answer 13

tested JOLs and recall of words, manipulated frequency of words. Greater JOL with greater frequency but lower recall. JOLs vary with frequency but recall varies inversely. conceptual fluency

Question 14

Explain Zechmesiter and Shaugnessy 1980

Answer 14

tested JOL and recall of words, manipulated spacing of learning trials. each word appeared twice in list either next to eachother (massed practice) or with others in between (distributed practice). JOLs better with massed but recall better with distributed.

Question 15

Explain Nelson and Dunlosky

Answer 15

tetsed JOLs and recall for word pairings (random), manipulated timing of JOL, either immedieate or with delay. Improved JOL accuracy with delay, correlation increase from G = .38 to .90. Delayed JOL has additional cue of whether in memory after a delay.

Question 16

Explain Nelson et al. 1994

Answer 16

tested JOLs and restudy choices of Swahili-English word translations. Greater JOL, less likely to choose to restudy, very strong correlation median G = 0.99. Shows JOLs predict later study effort.
also manipulated whether given choice to restudy or told what to restudy. Best memory performance in those who chose what to restudy or where told what to restudy based on their lowest JOLs, compared to those were told to restudy most difficult or highest JOL.

Question 17

Explain Metcalfe 2002

Answer 17

tested allocation of study time between different difficulties of English Spanish translations when given different lengths of study time, compared novices and experts. Found experts allocate most time to difficult words no matter the time given but novices spend more time on easier items with limited time and more time on difficult items with unlimited time. Shows region of proximal learning - allocate time to items that yield most benefit/ feel within learnable reach, experts wider region.

Question 18

Explain Hanczakowksi et al. 2014

Answer 18

tested FOK and recall for unrelated word pairs, some words primed in earlier non-memory related task. FOK predicts study choice G =0.92, priming affects FOK and restudy choices but not recall. Choose to restudy what feel on cusp of learning. metacognitive judgements shaped by experience of memory but not objective memory.

Question 19

Explain Thiede 1999

Answer 19

tested JOL, restudy choices and recall for Swahili-English word translations. Better performance from those with more accurate JOLs and those whose restudy choices align more with their JOLs (self-regulation). Shows that metacognitive judgements help learning by shaping restudy choices.

Question 20

Explain how JOLs can have negative affects on learning

Answer 20

Knoll et al. 2016 - learning styles affect JOLs but not recall, people more likely to seek out learning of their style or avoid learning not their style as improves experience of learning, expeneding effort and not imrpoving outcome of learning.
Murayama et al. 2015 - being given metacognitive control through an option to stop before the end of learning a word list worsened learning, people underestimate their learning ability and stop too soon, don’t think can take anything else on but can.

Question 21

Explain the metacognitive barriers to leaarning

Answer 21

Bjork and Bjork 2011 - the conditions that improve learning feel hard e.g., spacing, interleaving, varying practice conditions, testing rather than studying
Show difference between good performance e.g., reading through lots of notes covers most content and good learning e.g., testing self covers less content but promotes better recall.

Question 22

Explain Hacker et al 2000

Answer 22

compared psychology students predictions and actual test scores, compared across different quintiles (20%) of scores. all quintiles predict about a 70-85% score but scores varied from around 85% to 40%. Gap between prediction and performance widest in lowest quintile and smallest in highest quintile. Effect persisted across multiple tests.

Question 23

Explain the implications of metamemory for education

Answer 23

Improving metacognitive skills can improve educational outcomes - generalisable/ far transfer beyond subject taught for. Manipulating metacognitive illusions can also improve educational outcomes by manipulating JOL in ways that beneficically shape study.

Question 24

Give studies explaining how interventions to improve metamemory help education

Answer 24

Thiede et al 2003 - delayed keyword summaries improved metacomprehension (more accurate JOL) and performance after restudy
Johnson et al. 2016 - reflecting on explanatory ability reduces JOL overestimation just as well as explaining but 20 times faster

Question 25

What did Diemand-Yauman et al. 2011 find about exploiting metacognitive illusions?

Answer 25

tested JOL and performance of US high school students with learning materials in easy versus difficult to read font. Difficult font lowers JOL, enocurages more effort, prompting better performance. Exploits disfluency as lowering JOL. Fonts such as sans forgetica developed, but moxed results on how well works and issues with accessibility.

Question 26

Explain Johnson et al. 2016

Answer 26

Johnson et al. 2016 - intervention called reflecting on explanatory ability where think about how well could explain something in step by step manor, doing so before JOL reduced overestimation just as well as actually explaining but 20 times faster, helps detect gaps by evaluating compelxity.

Question 27

Explain Yan et al 2016

Answer 27

Yan et al. 2016 compared metacognitive judgements and performance for blocking versus interleaving, found learners tend to beleive blocking better even after benefiting from interleaving because blocking is pre-concieved to be better and creates sense of fluency. Compared experienced based and theory based intervention techniques e.g., info on why interleaving better but feels worse, drawing attention to link between study shecule and performance. Found only modest effects unless blocking and interleaving clearly seperate so no ambiguity for how learnt what. Matching paintigs to artists.

Question 28

Explain Thiede et al. 2003

Answer 28

Thiede et al. 2003 - tested metacomprehension intervention (give keyword summaries for text) at different times (immediately after essay read or with delay) and compared to control. Delayed keyword summaries gave best JOL. No difference in performance in first test (after JOL) but delayed keywords gave best performance in second test (after restudy). Intervention improved metacognitive abilities -> restudy choices -> performance.