Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?

Published Online:April 14, 2021https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000441

Abstract

Abstract. Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning? Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied, (b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy.

References

  • Begg, I. M., Martin, L. A., & Needham, D. R. (1992). Memory monitoring: How useful is self-knowledge about memory? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449208406182 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. In B. RossEd., Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 103–140). Elsevier. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hanczakowski, M., Zawadzka, K., & Cockcroft-McKay, C. (2014). Feeling of knowing and restudy choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1617–1622. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0619-0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hertzog, C., Kidder, D., Powell-Moman, A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Monitoring associative learning: What determines the accuracy of metacognitive judgments. Psychology & Aging, 17, 209–225. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kimball, D. R., Smith, T. A., & Muntean, W. J. (2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 923–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026936 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.490 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kornell, N., & Flanagan, K. E. (2014). Is focusing on unknown pairs while studying a beneficial long-term strategy? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 928–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.967771 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 32, 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.609 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Krueger, L. E. (2012). Age-related effects of study time allocation on memory performance in a verbal and a spatial task. Educational Gerontology, 38, 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2011.595327 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.1.174 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2013). Metacognition and control of study choice in children. Metacognition & Learning, 8, 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9094-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JML.2004.12.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Morehead, K., & Dunlosky, J. (2020). Do students make effective decisions when regulating their learning of categories? Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 5, 43–52. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Foster, N. L. (2017). Do people use category-learning judgments to regulate learning of natural categories? Memory & Cognition, 45, 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0729-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, E. A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00502.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. BowerEd., Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). Academic Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nelson, T. O., Narens, L., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment Recall and Monitoring (PRAM). Psychological Methods, 9(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.53 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021705 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017892 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. B. (2012). Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 743–749. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0266-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. HackerJ. DunloskyA. C. GraesserEds., Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar