Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning.

Hertzog, Christopher; Dunlosky, John; Robinson, A. Emanuel; Kidder, Daniel P.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.22

Cited by 154 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One possibility-investigated in Experiment 4--was that people, instead, used Trial 1 encoding fluency (T 1 EF) to make their Trial 2 JOLs. Encoding fluency is a measure of how easily a pair was processed or learned during study (Begg et al, 1989) and has been shown to influence immediate JOLs independently of recall (Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson, & Kidder, 2003;Koriat & Ma'ayan, 2005;Mazzoni & Nelson, 1995; but see . Encoding fluency might have been different for the 1−5 and 5−1 conditions at the end of Trial 1, and if it was, then this discrepancy might have led to the difference in Trial 2 JOL bias shown in Experiments 1 and 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Finn

Metcalfe

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Underconfidence with Practice (UPW) effect (Koriat, Sheffer & Ma'ayan, 2002), found in multitrial learning, is marked by a pattern of underconfidence accompanied by an increase in resolution between the judgments and test on and after the second trial. We tested whether the memory for past test (MPT) heuristic could explain the resolution and calibration effects. To selectively alter Trial 1 test performance, and hence MPT, we manipulated the number of repetitions (Experiment 1) or the study time (Experiment 2) on Trial 1, but then the manipulation was reversed on Trial 2, thereby equating final performance. Despite equivalent Trial 2 recall performance, Trial 2 JOLs reflected the manipulated Trial 1 test performance, providing support for the MPT hypothesis. Follow up experiments tested alternative explanations. We found that people could remember past test and that use of this information would produce both underconfidence and improved resolution. In contrast, neither memory for Trial 1 encoding fluency nor memory for Trial 1 JOLs was able to explain both aspects of the UWP effect. These experiments support the proposal that people use the Memory for Past Test heuristic to make second trial immediate JOLs, and that its use can account for the UWP effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Finn

Metcalfe

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The direction of causality has been described as going from subjective judgments to behaviors (e.g., Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996;Nelson & Narens, 1990;Son & Schwartz, 2002), and from behaviors to subjective judgments (Benjamin & Bjork, 1996;Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson, & Kidder, 2003;Kelley & Jacoby, 1996;Matvey, Dunlosky, & Guttentag, 2001).…”

Section: The Relationship Between Monitoring and Control And Its Effementioning

confidence: 99%

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Osman¹

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined how self-regulatory processes influenced problem solving behavior under conditions in which people were either re-exposed to their prior learning, or experienced someone else's. In a series of four experiments, participants solved two complex control tasks that were identical in structure but varied in presentation format. Participants either learnt to solve the second task, based on their original learning phase from the first task, or learnt to solve the second task based on another participant's learning phase. Experiment 1 showed that, under conditions in which participants' learning phase was experienced twice, performance deteriorated in the second task compared to the first. In contrast, when the learning phases in the first and second task differed, performance improved in the second task.Experiment 2 introduced instructional manipulations that induced the same response patterns as Experiment 1, and Experiment 3 showed that participants differentially weighted the learning phase in the second task. In Experiment 4, judgments of selfefficacy were shown to track control performance. The implications of these findings for induction, self-regulation, and insight are discussed. examples share a precise goal that involves accurately and reliably controlling a complex dynamic control task (CDCT-i.e., the aircraft). Control behavior in this, and other types of CDCTs (e.g., air-traffic control, naval mine sweeping, car driving) depends on the development of expertise (e.g., Brehmer, 1992;Funke, 2001; Gonzalez, Lerch, & Lebiere, 2003;Kerstholt, 1996;Randel & Pugh, 1996;Sweller, 1988;.Expertise involves both monitoring-through self-evaluation of goal-directed actions (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996)-and control, or the generation and selection of goal-directed actions (e.g., Lerch & Harter, 2001; Locke & Latham, 2002;Rossano, 2003;Sweller, 1988;VanLehn, 1996;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996). Both behaviors are also interrelated (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996). However, studies of skill learning in CDCTs have overlooked this relationship, particularly how it influences the transferability of expertise (e.g., Berry, 1991;Berry & Broadbent, 1988;Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002). Without an Anti-Learning 5 understanding of how individuals monitor their behavior, little can be said about how evaluative processes are employed when transferring learnt skills to achieve unpracticed goals.For instance, the critical difference between the examples above is that, in the first case, training (i.e., control performance) and assessment (i.e., monitoring) are based on self-generated behavior; whereas, in the second, assessment is based on comparing self-and other-generated training behavior. These types of training procedures are often used in educational (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;Pressley, & Ghatala, 1990;Zimmerman, 1990), clin...

show abstract

“…We suggest that this occurred because participants regarded large items as subjectively more fluent and, thus, more memorable than small items. Other work has shown that predictions of future performance can be sensitive to fluency (Begg et al 1989;Benjamin et al, 1998;Hertzog et al, 2003;Koriat & Ma'ayan, 2005;Matvey et al, 2001; see also Kelley & Lindsay, 1993). For example, Begg et al (1989) suggested that participants "predict success for items that are easiest to process in the manner demanded by the task" (p. 610).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors have demonstrated that enhancing the familiarity of a cue, for example, through repetition (e.g., Metcalfe, Schwartz, & Joaquim, 1993; see also Jameson, Narens, Goldfarb, & Nelson, 1990), elevates levels of prospective confidence. In addition, there is some indication that both ease of encoding (Begg et al, 1989;Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson, & Kidder, 2003) and the ease with which an item is retrieved before a JOL is made (e.g., Benjamin et al, 1998;Matvey, Dunlosky, & Guttentag, 2001) influence such judgments, so that participants regard easily retrieved or processed items as having a high probability of later recall. However, the prior evidence is at best indirect, and an understanding of the potential influence of perceptual qualities of stimuli on predictions of memory performance requires a direct manipulation of such qualities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions.

Rhodes

Castel

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

389

489

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although perceptual information is utilized to judge size or depth, little work has investigated whether such information is used to make memory predictions. The present study examined how the font size of to-be-remembered words influences predicted memory performance. Participants studied words for a freerecall test that varied in font size and made judgments of learning (JOLs) for each item. JOLs were influenced by font size, as larger font sizes were given higher JOLs, whereas little relationship was evident between font size and recall. The effect was modified when other, more valid, sources of information (e.g., associative strength) were available when JOLs were made and persisted despite experience with multiple study-test sessions, use of a forgetting scale to assess predictions, and explicit warning of participants that font size has little effect on memory performance. When ease of reading was manipulated, such that large font size words were made less fluent, the effect was eliminated. Thus, highly accessible perceptual cues can strongly influence JOLs, likely via encoding fluency, and this effect can lead to metacognitive illusions.

show abstract

Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning.

Cited by 154 publications

References 33 publications

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About