När vi studerar så bedömer vi kontinuerligt vår egen inlärning via en så kallad inlärningsbedömning Judgement of Learning (JOL), vilket ligger till grund för vår reglering av till exempel studietid. Denna studie undersökte om de bedömningar vi utför även påverkar vårt minne. Tjugoåtta deltagare delades in i två grupper som fick lära sig 40 ordpar på samma sätt, följt av ett minnestest efter ett retentionsintervall på fem minuter. Den enda skillnaden mellan de två grupperna var att ena gruppen bedömde sin inlärning tre gånger och den andre endast en gång. Resultatet som erhölls visade att det inte var någon signifikant skillnad mellan grupperna, det vill säga att den grupp som utförde tre bedömningar inte mindes materialet bättre än den grupp som enbart utförde en bedömning. Resultatet diskuteras i relation till rådande teorier kring JOL-bedömningar.

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツで使用している。

No description available.

Properly tuned metacognitive knowledge is important for setting up realistic learning goals. One of the more robust findings in metacognitive science, the delayed JOL effect, pertains to the fact that delaying judgments of learning (JOL) leads to more accurate monitoring of one’s learning. Thirty students were tested on their knowledge of metacognitive strategies. They were asked to study paired associates, make JOLs, and were later tested with a cued recall test, as well asked about the efficacy of strategies for making JOLs. There was a significant positive effect in monitoring accuracy, from delaying JOLs, yet the participants showed poor explicit knowledge of it, and neither did their choice of strategy improve with task experience. The results demonstrate the important role of correct assessment during ongoing learning, and that even experienced learners, such as, university undergraduates are seemingly unaware of which strategies lead to optimal monitoring.

Contemporary theories of learning suggest that successful learners are active in the learning process and that they tend to use a number of metacognitive processes to monitor learning and remembering. Drawing on the theoretical framework of Nelson and Narens (1992), the current study examined the effect of certain variables on metamemory processes and on students' ability to recall and recognise learned material. The present study explored the effect of four independent variables on five dependent variables. The independent variables were: 1. degree of learning (responses given until 2 or 8 times correct), 2. judgment of learning (JOL) timing (given immediately after learning session or 24 hours later), 3. retention interval between study and test (2 or 6 weeks), and 4. type of material studied (sentences, in or out of context). The dependent variables were: 1. judgement of learning (JOL), 2. confidence rating, 3. feeling of knowing (FOK), 4. recall, and 5. recognition.. As ancillary analyses, the study explored, firstly, whether gender differences had an effect on meta-level and object-level memory, and secondly, whether students who recalled more also made more accurate metamemory judgements. The effects of the independent variables on recall and recognition were consistent with those found by previous studies. The most interesting new finding of the present study was that students who made JOLs after twenty four hours were more likely to take into account the effect of the interval between learning and testing. Students who made immediate JOLs did not allow for the effect of the time interval on retention. A further new finding was that gender appeared to have had an influence on JOLs. The findings about the effects of timing of JOLs and of gender effects on JOL have implications for metacognitive theory and will stimulate further research. The practical significance of this research, particularly the implications for study skills training for all students, was that educators cannot presume that students will correctly predict what they will recall after six weeks if they make that judgement immediately after learning has occurred. Therefore, the effects of the passage of time on memory, and the efficacy of delaying judgments, should be made explicit. The finding that the manipulation of JOL timing has a significant effect on the accuracy of judgements has implications in the wider area of educational policymaking and for the current debate on competencies and quality assurance. Learning cannot be considered a simple process and when a large component of learning is selfdirected, as it is in tertiary institutions and increasingly in schools, many variables are operating.

Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are judgments of the likelihood of remembering recently studied material on a future test. Although JOLs have been extensively studied, particularly due to their important applications in education, relatively little is known about the cognitive and neural processes supporting JOLs and how these processes relate to actual memory processing. Direct access theories describe JOLs as outputs following direct readings of memory traces and hence predict that JOLs cannot be distinguished from objective memory encoding operations. Inferential theories, by contrast, claim JOLs are products of the evaluation of a number of cues, perceived by learners to carry predictive value. This alternative account argues that JOLs are made on the basis of multiple underlying processes, which do not necessarily overlap with memory encoding. In this thesis, the neural and cognitive bases of JOLs were examined in a series of four ERP experiments. Across experiments the study phase ERP data showed that JOLs produce neural activity that is partly overlapping with, but also partly distinct from, the activity that predicts successful memory encoding. Furthermore, the neural correlates of successful memory encoding appear sensitive to the requirements to make a JOL, emphasising the close interaction between subjective and objective measures of memory encoding. Finally, the neural correlates of both JOLs and successful memory encoding were found to vary depending on the nature of the stimulus materials, suggesting that both phenomena are supported by multiple cognitive and neural systems. Although the primary focus was on the study phase ERP data, the thesis also contains two additional chapters reporting the ERP data acquired during the test phases of three of the original experiments. These data, which examined the relative engagements of retrieval processes for low and high JOL items, suggest that encoding processes specifically resulting in later recollection (as opposed to familiarity) form one reliable basis for making JOLs. Overall, the evidence collected in this series of ERP experiments suggests that JOLs are not pure products of objective memory processes, as suggested by direct access theories, but are supported by neural systems that are at least partly distinct from those supporting successful memory encoding. These observations are compatible with inferential theories claiming that JOLs are supported by multiple processes that can be differentially engaged across stimulus contents.

Judgments of Learning (JOL) that are made after a delay, instead of immediately after study, are more accurate in terms of predicting later recall (the delayed JOL effect). The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP) theory explains the delayed JOL effect as the result of a testing effect. In the current study we tested the prediction that performing delayed JOLs leads to a memory improvement. During learning, 79 participants studied Swahili-Swedish word pairs, immediately followed by a cued recall test, and then made either one single or three repeated, spaced JOLs. A final cued recall test was given after either 5 minutes or 1 week. Making repeated JOLs did not increase memory performance compared to the single JOL condition, hence lending no support to the SFP theory. However, making repeated JOLs did improve their relative accuracy, which suggests that the delayed JOL effect mainly concerns memory monitoring and not performance.

Many would agree that learning occurs when new information is stored in memory. Therefore, most learning efforts typically focus on encoding processes, such as additional study or other forms of repetition. However, as I will outline in this thesis, there are other means by which to improve memory, such as retrieval practice in the form of tests. Testing memory has a reinforcing effect on memory, and it improves retention more than an equal amount of repeated study – referred to as the testing effect – and it has been assumed that retrieval processes drive this effect. Recently, however, this assumption has been called into question because of findings that suggest that articulation, that is, the act of providing an explicit response on a memory test, may play a role in determining the magnitude of the testing effect. Therefore, in three studies, I have examined the effects of retrieval and articulation on later retention, in an attempt to ascertain whether the testing effect is entirely driven by retrieval, or if there are additive effects of articulation. I have also explored possible boundary conditions that may determine when, and if, the effects of retrieval and articulation become selective with respect to memory performance. In all three studies, participants studied paired associates and were tested in a cued recall paradigm after a short (~5 min) and a long (1 week) retention interval, and retrieval was either covert (i.e., responses were retrieved but not articulated) or overt (i.e., responses were retrieved and articulated).  In Study I, I demonstrated that uninstructed covert retrieval practice (by means of delayed judgments of learning) produced a testing effect (i.e., improved memory relative to a study-only condition) similar to that of explicit testing, which supports the idea that the testing effect is mainly the result of retrieval processes. In study II, I compared memory performance for covert and overt testing, and found partial support for a relative efficacy in favor of overt retrieval, compared to covert retrieval, although the effect size was small. In Study III, I further explored the distinction between different response formats (i.e., covert retrieval vs. various forms of overt testing), specifically handwriting and keyboard typing. I also examined the relative efficacy of covert versus overt retrieval as a function of list order (i.e., whether covert and overt retrieval is practiced in blocks or random order) and its manipulation within or between subjects. The results of Study III were inconclusive insofar as a relative efficacy of covert versus overt retrieval, with respect to later retention, could not be demonstrated reliably. The list order manipulations did not appear to affect covert and overt retrieval selectively. More importantly, in cases where a relative efficacy was found, the effect size was again small. Taken together, the three studies that of thesis indicate that the benefit of testing memory appears to be almost entirely the result of retrieval processes, and that articulation alone adds very little – if anything – to the magnitude of the testing effect, at least in cued-recall paradigms. These findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications, as well as their importance for the development of optimal teaching and learning practices in educational settings. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following paper was unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 3: Accepted.</p>

Diese Arbeit untersucht prominente Erfassungsmethoden metakognitiver Aktivitäten die während des Lernprozesses zum Einsatz kommen (online) auf deren Güte und Reaktivität. Im Fokus stehen die Methoden Laut-Denken, Fragebogenmethode sowie die Erfassung von Lernleistungsurteilen. Lernaufgaben werden durch komplexe Textlernaufgaben sowie Problemlöseaufgaben in deren Rahmen abduktive Schlüsse gefordert sind repräsentiert. In Studie 1 wurden metakognitive Aktivitäten die mittels retrospektiv eingesetzten Fragebögen sowie mittels Laut-Denken erfasst wurden gegenübergestellt. Dabei wurden die Fragebogenitems parallel zum polytomen Kategoriensystem mit dessen Hilfe die Daten aus der Laut-Denken-Methode ausgewertet wurden konstruiert. Im Rahmen der Auswertung der Laut-Denken Daten war die Übereinstimmung zweiter unabhängiger, gut geschulter Urteiler unbefriedigend. Die Übereinstimmungsunterschiede zwischen den Kategorien sowie zwischen den Probanden waren erheblich. Dies weist darauf hin, dass das Kategoriensystem nicht zur Auswertung der Laut-Denken Daten geeignet ist. Zudem scheinen große Unterschiede in der Nutzung metakognitiver Aktivitäten zwischen den Probanden zu bestehen. Zwischen Fragebogendaten und Laut-Denken-Daten besteht ein geringer nicht signifikanter negativer Zusammenhang. In Studie 2 wurde die Reaktivität der Laut-Denken-Methode und der Aufzeichnung von Lernleistungsurteilen während des Bearbeitens einer Textlese- sowie Problemlöseaufgabe untersucht. Die Ergebnisse dieser experimentellen Studie mit 2x2 Design legen nahe, dass von Laut-Denken im Rahmen von Problemlöseaufgaben reaktive Effekte zu erwarten sind. Von Lernleistungsurteilen hingegen sind reaktive Effekte lediglich im Rahmen von komplexen Textleseaufgaben zu erwarten. Auch im Rahmen dieser Erhebung mittels Laut-Denken konnte lediglich eine unbefriedigende Reliabilität der Messung berichtet werden obgleich in dieser Studie 11 unabhängige Urteiler zum Einsatz kamen. Auch hier wurde keine erwähnenswerte Korrelation zwischen Fragebogendaten und Laut-Denken Erhebung ermittelt. In Studie 3 wurden metakognitive Aktivitäten zu mehreren Messzeitpunkten im Kontext einer komplexen Gruppenlernaufgabe erhoben. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf einen individuellen Einsatz metakognitiver Aktivitäten unabhängig von der Lernsituation hin. Insgesamt lassen die Ergebnisse der Studien darauf schließen, dass Laut-Denken zumindest dann keine valide Erfassung metakognitiver Aktivitäten während des Lernens ermöglicht, wenn polytome Kategoriensysteme mit einer hohen Anzahl an Kategorien zum Einsatz kommen. Außerdem ist in spezifischen Lernsituationen von potentiellen reaktiven Effekte der Erhebung auszugehen. Dies gilt auch für die Erfassung des Monitoring- und Überwachungs-/Regulierungsverhaltens mittels Lernleistungsurteilen.

Diese Arbeit untersucht prominente Erfassungsmethoden metakognitiver Aktivitäten die während des Lernprozesses zum Einsatz kommen (online) auf deren Güte und Reaktivität. Im Fokus stehen die Methoden Laut-Denken, Fragebogenmethode sowie die Erfassung von Lernleistungsurteilen. Lernaufgaben werden durch komplexe Textlernaufgaben sowie Problemlöseaufgaben in deren Rahmen abduktive Schlüsse gefordert sind repräsentiert. In Studie 1 wurden metakognitive Aktivitäten die mittels retrospektiv eingesetzten Fragebögen sowie mittels Laut-Denken erfasst wurden gegenübergestellt. Dabei wurden die Fragebogenitems parallel zum polytomen Kategoriensystem mit dessen Hilfe die Daten aus der Laut-Denken-Methode ausgewertet wurden konstruiert. Im Rahmen der Auswertung der Laut-Denken Daten war die Übereinstimmung zweiter unabhängiger, gut geschulter Urteiler unbefriedigend. Die Übereinstimmungsunterschiede zwischen den Kategorien sowie zwischen den Probanden waren erheblich. Dies weist darauf hin, dass das Kategoriensystem nicht zur Auswertung der Laut-Denken Daten geeignet ist. Zudem scheinen große Unterschiede in der Nutzung metakognitiver Aktivitäten zwischen den Probanden zu bestehen. Zwischen Fragebogendaten und Laut-Denken-Daten besteht ein geringer nicht signifikanter negativer Zusammenhang. In Studie 2 wurde die Reaktivität der Laut-Denken-Methode und der Aufzeichnung von Lernleistungsurteilen während des Bearbeitens einer Textlese- sowie Problemlöseaufgabe untersucht. Die Ergebnisse dieser experimentellen Studie mit 2x2 Design legen nahe, dass von Laut-Denken im Rahmen von Problemlöseaufgaben reaktive Effekte zu erwarten sind. Von Lernleistungsurteilen hingegen sind reaktive Effekte lediglich im Rahmen von komplexen Textleseaufgaben zu erwarten. Auch im Rahmen dieser Erhebung mittels Laut-Denken konnte lediglich eine unbefriedigende Reliabilität der Messung berichtet werden obgleich in dieser Studie 11 unabhängige Urteiler zum Einsatz kamen. Auch hier wurde keine erwähnenswerte Korrelation zwischen Fragebogendaten und Laut-Denken Erhebung ermittelt. In Studie 3 wurden metakognitive Aktivitäten zu mehreren Messzeitpunkten im Kontext einer komplexen Gruppenlernaufgabe erhoben. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf einen individuellen Einsatz metakognitiver Aktivitäten unabhängig von der Lernsituation hin. Insgesamt lassen die Ergebnisse der Studien darauf schließen, dass Laut-Denken zumindest dann keine valide Erfassung metakognitiver Aktivitäten während des Lernens ermöglicht, wenn polytome Kategoriensysteme mit einer hohen Anzahl an Kategorien zum Einsatz kommen. Außerdem ist in spezifischen Lernsituationen von potentiellen reaktiven Effekte der Erhebung auszugehen. Dies gilt auch für die Erfassung des Monitoring- und Überwachungs-/Regulierungsverhaltens mittels Lernleistungsurteilen.