Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning

Hu, Xiao; Liu, Zhaomin; Li, Tongtong; Luo, Liang

doi:10.1080/09658211.2015.1009470

Cited by 28 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When the making of the judgment is delayed from the exposure to the materials in the laboratory, however, judgments of learning do not seem to show fluency effects (e.g., Hu, Liu, Li, & Luo, 2016). In contrast, participants in the present study made their judgments outside of the classroom and at a long temporal delay from most of their experience with the fluency of their instructors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 38%

Instructor Fluency Correlates with Students’ Ratings of Their Learning and Their Instructor in an Actual Course

Serra¹,

Magreehan²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experience of ease or fluency that occurs when learners acquire information is often highly related to their metacognitive judgments of learning for that information. Laboratory-based research indicates that fluency can contribute to students' overconfident judgments of learning and predictions of future test performance. Such research, however, typically involves artificial learning situations presented for brief periods of time and without a strong investment on the part of the learners. In actual courses, the most likely source of fluency may be instructor fluency: the experience of fluency that stems from content-independent attributes of the instructor and his or her presentation of the information. To examine whether this form of fluency relates to students' judgments of learning in actual academic courses, we include a measure of instructor fluency in a survey completed by college students (n = 606) answering questions about their course instructors. Students' content-independent perceptions of instructor fluency (e.g., volume; eye contact) are related to their judgments of learning for the course content, to their ratings of various qualities of the instructor and the course, and to their self-reported interest and motivation in the course. Importantly, these relationships maintain when we control for students' final grades in the course and despite the fact that students make these ratings at a long temporal delay from the classroom experience. Therefore, much as occurs in the laboratory, students' metacognitive judgments of their learning and ratings of instructor attributes are related to content independent qualities of their course instructors in actual semester-long courses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 38%

Instructor Fluency Correlates with Students’ Ratings of Their Learning and Their Instructor in an Actual Course

Serra¹,

Magreehan²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Materials, design, and procedure The stimuli were 50 weakly associated Chinese word pairs developed by Hu et al (2016). These 50 pairs were separated into five sets, one for each block of the study phase.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, recent research has revealed that a range of factors may bias people's metamemory monitoring. For instance, although the font size of study words has no effect on later recall, people give higher judgments of learning (JOLs; i.e., the judged likelihood that a given item will be remembered at a later test) to large-than to small-font-size words (Hu et al, 2015;Hu, Liu, Li, & Luo, 2016;Rhodes & Castel, 2008;Yang, Huang, & Shanks, 2017). Along the same lines, although loudness has no effect on memory retention, people give higher JOLs to loud than to quiet words (Rhodes & Castel, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgments about future memory performance (metamemory judgments) are known to be susceptible to illusions and bias. Here we asked whether metamemory judgments are affected, like many other forms of judgment, by numerical anchors. Experiment 1 confirmed previous research showing an effect of informative anchors (e.g., past peer performance) on metamemory monitoring. In four further experiments, we then explored the effects of uninformative anchors. All of the experiments obtained significant anchoring effects on metamemory monitoring; in contrast, the anchors had no effect on recall itself. We also explored the anchoring effect on metamemory control (restudy choices) in Experiment 4. The results suggested that anchors can affect metamemory monitoring, which in turn affects metamemory control. The present research reveals that informative and, more importantly, uninformative numbers that have no influence on recall itself can bias metamemory judgments. On the basis of the current theoretical understanding of the anchoring effect and metamemory monitoring, these results offer insight into the processes that trigger metacognitive biases.

show abstract

“…We conducted a power analysis using G*power to determine the required sample size (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). By using the effect sizes from previous studies in which Cohen's ds ranged from 0.58 to 0.74 (Hu et al, 2016;Rhodes & Castel, 2008), we found that about 22-34 participants are required to observe a significant (α = .05) font size effect on JOLs at 0.9 power. Therefore, we recruited 28 participants, with a mean age of 22.21 (SD = 7.10) years, 21 females, from the University College London (UCL) participant pool.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants gave significantly higher JOLs to large than to small words, yet at a later test, recall performance was equivalent for large and small words. The font size effect on JOLs is robust and has been replicated dozens of times (e.g., Ball, Klein, & Brewer, 2014;Besken, 2016;Hu et al, 2015;Hu, Liu, Li, & Luo, 2016;Kornell, Rhodes, Castel, & Tauber, 2011;F. Li, Xie, Li, & Li, 2015;Miele, Finn, & Molden, 2011;Mueller et al, 2014;Price & Harrison, 2017;Price, McElroy, & Martin, 2016;Susser, Mulligan, & Besken, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect

Yang

Huang

Shanks

2018

Journal of Memory and Language

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The font size effect on judgments of learning (JOLs) refers to the fact that people give higher JOLs to large than to small font size words, despite font size having no effect on retention. The effect is important because it spotlights a process dissociation between metacognitive judgments about memory and memory performance itself. Previous research has proposed a fluency theory to account for this effect, but this theory has been contradicted by a recent study which found no difference in response times (RTs)and hence fluencyin a lexical decision task between large and small words

show abstract

Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning

Cited by 28 publications

References 44 publications

Instructor Fluency Correlates with Students’ Ratings of Their Learning and Their Instructor in an Actual Course

Instructor Fluency Correlates with Students’ Ratings of Their Learning and Their Instructor in an Actual Course

The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring

Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About