Memory monitoring accuracy and modification of rehearsal strategies

Shaughnessy, John J.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(81)90389-3

Cited by 84 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 This anchoring hypothesis is consistent with a series of structural equation models conducted on the between-person correlations among these measures that are reported elsewhere (Hertzog et al, 2007). updating when it occurs. Past research using JOLs to infer that individuals do not learn about differential strategy effectiveness (e.g., Shaughnessy, 1981) need to be reinterpreted in light of our findings.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: Inferential deficit or experimental artifact?

Hertzog

Price

Burpee

et al. 2009

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students generally do not have highly accurate knowledge about strategy effectiveness for learning, such as that imagery is superior to rote repetition. During multiple study-test trials using both strategies, participants' predictions about performance on List 2 do not markedly differ for the two strategies, even though List 1 recall is substantially greater for imagery. Two experiments evaluated whether such deficits in knowledge updating about the strategy effects were due to an experimental artifact or to inaccurate inferences about the effects the strategies had on recall. Participants studied paired associates on two study-test trials-they were instructed to study half using imagery and half using rote repetition. Metacognitive judgments tapped the quality of inferential processes about the strategy effects during the List 1 test and tapped gains in knowledge about the strategies across lists. One artifactual explanation -noncompliance with strategy instructions --was ruled out, whereas manipulations aimed at supporting the data available to inferential processes improved but did not fully repair knowledge updating.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: Inferential deficit or experimental artifact?

Hertzog

Price

Burpee

et al. 2009

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lack of insight into the need for elaborative rehearsal seems especially likely since it has been shown that feelings of knowing can be increased by mere priming (e.g., Reder, 1987;Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992), and hence this aspect of effective encoding is critical. Moreover, people fail to realise that elaborative rehearsal is more effective than maintenance rehearsal (Shaughnessy, 1981). In the computer programme we devised, to overcome these metacognitive illusions, we mimicked meaningful, elaborative rehearsal by presenting materials in varied contexts, and by using multimodal presentation.…”

Section: Meaningful Elaborative Multimodal Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting

Metcalfe

Kornell

Son

2007

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, learning performance in a 6-or 7-week cognitive-science based computer-study programme was compared to equal time spent self-studying on paper. The first two experiments were conducted with grade 6 and 7 children in a high risk educational setting, the third with Columbia University undergraduates. The principles the programme implemented included (1) deep, meaningful, elaborative, multimodal processing, (2) transfer-appropriate processing, (3) selfgeneration and multiple testing of responses, and (4) spaced practice. The programme was also designed to thwart metacognitive illusions that would otherwise lead to inappropriate study patterns. All three experiments showed a distinct advantage in final test performance for the cognitive-science based programme, but this advantage was particularly prominent in the children.A basic foundation for school accomplishment is the availability of higher order cognitive and metacognitive competencies to realistically assess one's knowledge, to allocate and organise study time and effort optimally, to apply cognitive principles (such as deep, elaborative rehearsal, self-generation, testing, and spacing of practice, to name just a few) that effectively enhance learning, and to resist the distractions that could undermine even the most sincerely endorsed intentions. In the population that we targeted in this research, a population of middle school children in an at-risk school setting, these competencies were strikingly limited. Their enhancement was the primary objective of this research. In addition, even among sophisticated learners, specific limitations exist in the use of certain metacognitive strategies. Children and adults often think they know things when they do not (see Metcalfe, 1998;Rawson & Dunlosky, 2007 this issue), and hence inappropriately terminate self-controlled study efforts, or otherwise study in a manner that fails to optimise learning (Bjork, 1994). We sought to devise a computerassisted study programme, based on principles of cognitive science, that would allow such metacognitive illusions to be overcome.The project reported here focused on memory enhancing principles derived from experimental studies in cognitive science. Most of these principles, because they have been studied primarily with a focus on understanding the mechanisms underlying memory and cognition, rather than on efforts to facilitate children's academic success, have been investigated in single-session experiments with scholastically irrelevant materials with college-student participants. Despite the apparent lack of connection of this cognitive science literature to real problems that children Correspondence should be addressed to Janet Metcalfe,

show abstract

“…The most extensive and analytical research on this problern has been carried out by Pressley, Levin, Ghatala anrl their associates, with their work stimulated largely by an earlier observationmarle by Shaughnessy (1981). In Shaughnessy's experiments, adults studied word pairs, using either a rote rehearsal or an imagery strategy.…”

Section: Monitoring Memory Strategy Utilitymentioning

confidence: 99%