Academic journal article Memory & Cognition

Delayed Judgments of Learning Cause Both a Decrease in Absolute Accuracy (Calibration) and an Increase in Relative Accuracy (Resolution)

Academic journal article Memory & Cognition

Delayed Judgments of Learning Cause Both a Decrease in Absolute Accuracy (Calibration) and an Increase in Relative Accuracy (Resolution)

Article excerpt

A version of the PRAM methodology that permits an analytical evaluation of judgment of learning (JOL) accuracy was used for the first time to assess absolute accuracy (specifically, calibration). Results are reported from a new experiment in which Swahili-English translation equivalents were studied, followed sometime later (either immediately, ~1 min, or ~8 min) by pre-JOL recall and JOLs, and followed eventually by final recall. The calibration accuracy for predicting final recall decreased as the delay between study and JOL increased, with the decrease being most dramatic when only items that were recalled at the time of the JOL were considered. In contrast, relative accuracy (as measured by an overall gamma) improved as the delay between study and JOL increased. Participants appear insensitive to the combined effects of the recallability of the items at the time of the JOLs and of the delay between JOL and testing on the accuracy of JOLs.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are defined as judgments that "occur during or after acquisition and are predictions about future test performance on recently studied items" (Nelson & Narens, 1994, p. 16).

There are two methods for evaluating the accuracy of JOLs. The most frequently used method involves calculating a measure of relative accuracy (a.k.a. resolution), usually as a gamma correlation computed in terms of performance on one item relative to performance on another item (e.g., if item a received a higher JOL than item b, then a person's relative accuracy would be perfect if, when the two items differ in subsequent performance, the likelihood of recall at test is greater for item a than for item b). One of the most robust findings regarding the relative accuracy of JOLs is that when JOLs are generated immediately after study, the JOL ratings are positively, but only moderately, correlated with eventual recall performance (Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991). However, when the JOLs are delayed briefly (Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991) or for several minutes (Kelemen & Weaver, 1997), then the JOL ratings are positively, and almost perfectly, correlated with eventual recall performance. The increase in the relative accuracy of JOL ratings with a short delay has been termed the delayed-JOL effect (for a review, see Schwartz, 1994).

A second method for evaluating the accuracy of JOLs involves calculating a measure of absolute accuracy (hereafter, we will use the term calibration), which is a comparison of the magnitude of all items receiving a particular JOL with the percentage of items recalled correctly at test (e.g., perfect calibration is said to occur when 80% of the items are recalled correctly that had received JOLs of 80%). By comparison with the findings of resolution, the findings regarding the calibration of JOLs are much less consistent. In fact, much research by Nelson and his colleagues has resulted in interesting, but conflicting, findings. Nelson and Dunlosky (1991) found that the calibration of JOLs was more accurate when JOLs were generated after a brief delay than when they were generated immediately after study. More recently, Nelson and his colleagues (Scheck, Meeter, & Nelson, 2004; Scheck & Nelson, 2005) have found that, with difficult items, the calibration of JOLs was less accurate with delayed JOLs than with immediate JOLs, whereas, for easy items, the calibration of JOLs was more accurate with delayed JOLs than with immediate JOLs. In tangentially related research, Koriat and his colleagues have also found several conditions under which the JOLs become less accurate, although not as a function of JOL delay: The calibration of JOLs can decrease as the delay between JOL and test increases (Koriat, Bjork, Sheffer, & Bar, 2004) and as the amount of practice with items increases (Koriat, 1997; Koriat, Shefter, & Ma'ayan, 2002).

Understanding the factors that lead to accurate calibration of JOL is therefore important for theory. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.