Progress and Prospect of the Research on Delayed Judgment of Learning

Abstract

Abstract:

Delayed judgment of learning is a kind of judgment of learning(JOL).When people make dylayed Jolter is the delay between study and JOL. Dunlosky (1991) found that the calibration of JOLs was more accurate after a brief than when they were generated immediately after study. New study indexes, method and theory foundation were advanced. Then, the paper introduced the progress of delayed-JOLs study, including some important theories, experiments, and new research achievements. The summarization of the research in existence and the suggestions for future research were put forward.

Key words: judgments of learning, delayed-JOLs, delayed-JOL effect.

摘要：

延迟学习判断是学习判断的一种形式，是指在材料学习完以后间隔一段时间才发生的学习判断。在与即时学习判断的对比研究中发现，延迟学习判断具有较高的相对准确性，这种现象被称为延迟学习判断效应。研究者进行了大量的研究并提出了多种理论来解释这种延迟学习判断效应。随着研究的不断深入，延迟学习判断的研究从研究指标、研究方法甚至是研究的理论基础都在不断更新。延迟学习判断的研究进展，包括主要理论和相关实验，以及最新研究成果将被介绍。最后，文章梳理了延迟JOL的研究进程，并指出了未来的研究方向。

关键词: 学习判断, 延迟学习判断, 延迟学习判断效应

贾宁. 延迟学习判断研究的发展与展望[J]. 心理科学, 2012, 35(1): 62-69.

References

侯瑞鹤，俞国良. (2008). 加工流畅性和提取流畅性与学习不良儿童JOL的关系.心理学报，40（9）, 994-1001. 贾宁,白学军,沈德立. (2006).学习判断准确性的研究方法. 心理发展与教育,22(3),103-109. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J.(1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language,28, 610-632. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L.M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 123-144. Carroll, M., Nelson, T. O., & Kirwan, A. (1997). Tradeoff of semantic relatedness and degree of overlearning: Differential effects on metamemory and on long-term retention. Acta Psychologica, 95,239-253. Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of intrinsic-extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27,1180-1191. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning(JOLs)and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 373-380. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545-565. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1997). Similarity between the cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the cue for test is not the primary determinant of JOL accuracy. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 34-49. Dunlosky, J., Serra, M. J., Matvey, G.,& Rawson, K.(2005). A. Second-order judgments about judgments of learning. The journal of general psychology, 132 (4), 335-346. Keleman,W. L.(2000). Metamemory cue and monitoring accuracy: Judging what you know and what you will know. Journal of Educational Psychology,92(4), 800-810. Kelemen, W. L., & Weaver, C. A. III. (1997). Enhanced Metamemory at Delays: Why Do Judgments of Learning Improve Over Time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(6), 1394-1409. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know what we know? The accessibility account of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126,349-370. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187-194. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A.(2006a). Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1133-1145. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006b). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory and Cognition, 34(5), 959-972. Koriat, A.,& Ma’ayan, H.(2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 595-608. Lockhart, R. S. (2002). Levels of processing, transfer-appropriate processing, and the concept of robust encoding. Memory, 10, 397-403. Maki, R .H. (1998). Predicting performance on text: Delay versus immediate predictions and tests. Memory & Cognition, 26, 959-964. Mazzoni, G., & Nelson, T. O.(1995). Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1263-1274. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,15(1),174-179. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Familiarity and Retrieval Processes in Delayed Judgments of Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34（5）, 1084–1097. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the “Delayed-JOL Effect”. Psychological Science, 2(4), 267-270. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 125-173. Nelson, T. O., Narens, L., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment recall and monitoring (PRAM). Psychological Methods, 9, 53-69 Richards, R. M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Effect of the difficulty of prior items on the magnitude of judgment of learning for subsequent items. American Journal of Psychology, 117,81-91. Roediger, H. L., Gallo, D. A., & Geraci, L. (2002). Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory, 10, 319-332. Scheck, P., & Nelson, T. O. (2005). Lack of pervasiveness of the underconfidence-with-practice effect: Boundary conditions and an explanation via anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1): 124-128. Scheck, P., Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delay judgments of learning. Journal of memory and language, 51,71-79. Son, L. K, & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage model. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1116–1129. Spellman, B. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). When predictions create reality: judgments of learning may alter what they are intended. Psychological Science, 3(5), 315-316. Thede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying Students' Metacognitive Monitoring Improves Their Accuracy in Predicting Their Recognition Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 290-302. Van Overschelde, J. P., & Nelson ,T. O. (2006). Delayed judgments of learning cause both a decrease in absolute accuracy（calibration）and an increase in relative accuracy(resolution) Memory & Cognition, 34，1527-1538. Weaver, C .A .III.,& Kelemen, W, L.(2003). Processing Similarity Does Not Improve Metamemory: Evidence Against Transfer- Appropriate Monitoring.Psychological Science, 29（6）, 1058-1065.

[1]	. Delayed Effect of the Influence of Perceptual Ambiguity on Judgments of Learning [J]. , 2021, 44(1): 2-8.
[2]	. Serial Position Effects of Immediate Judgments of Learning: the Effects of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Cues [J]. Psychological Science, 2011, 34(2): 418-422.