1. Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University

2. Talk Overview Definitions and methods How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments? How do people monitor cognitive processes? How do people control cognitive processes?

3. monitoring cognition controlling cognition Metacognitive Components knowledge about cognition

4. adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)

5. Monitoring and control of learning and memory processes and products Metamemory General Overviews Dunlosky (2004) In Hunt & Ellis, Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology. Metcalfe (2000). In Tulving & Craik, The Oxford Handbook of Memory.

6. adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)

7. Talk Overview Definitions and methods How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments? How do people monitor cognitive processes? How do people control cognitive processes?

8. Judgment of Learning How confident are you that in about 10 minutes from now you will recall the second word of the pair when shown the first word? 0 = definitely will not recall, 20 = 20 % sure, 40 = 40 % sure, 60…, 80…, 100 = definitely will recall dog - spoondog - ? studyJOL

9. Items Sample Data from 1 Participant dog - spoon chair - flood daffodil - blood closet - star acrobat - ice Judgment 0 80 60 0 20 Recall 1 0 0 1 1

10. Talk Overview Definitions and methods How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments? How do people monitor cognitive processes? How do people control cognitive processes?

11. Accuracy is measured by the correlation between judgments and recall: +1.0 = perfect accuracy 0 = no predictive accuracy Relatively Accurate Relatively INaccurate dog - spoon chair - flood daffodil - blood closet - star acrobat - ice doctor - lobster 100 80 60 40 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 JOLs recall correlation = +.78 dog - spoon chair - flood daffodil - blood closet - star acrobat - ice doctor - lobster 1 0 1 0 1 0 JOLs recall 100 80 60 40 0 0 correlation = +.25

12. Relative accuracy of the judgments of learning Older Younger Connor et al. (1997) Study 1 (unrelated pairs) Study 2 (related pairs) Study 3 (mixed list) Dunlosky & Hertzog (2000) Trial 1 Trial 2 Hertzog et al. (2003) Unrelated pairs Related pairs Across all items.44.29.50.57.49.55.48.55.48.43.23.20.14.08.46.37 Median.47.36

13. study dog - spoondog - ? Immediate Judgment of Learning study dog - spoondog - ? Test about 10 min

14. study dog - spoondog - ? Immediate Judgment of Learning study dog - spoondog - ? Test about 10 min study dog - spoondog - ? Delayed Judgment of Learning about 30 sec

15. ImmediateDelayed Accuracy: Correlation between Judgment and Recall Performance 1.8.6.4.2 0 Connor et al. (1997)

16. Predictive accuracy of immediate and delayed judgments of learning Metamemory Performance (gamma for JOL accuracy) Delayed Immediate Nelson & Dunlosky (1991)+.90 >+.38 Dunlosky & Nelson (1992)+.93>+.45 Thiede & Dunlosky (1994) recall+.86 >+.63 Dunlosky & Nelson (1994) interactive imagery+.72 >+.10 rote rehearsal+.93 >+.29 distributed repetitions+.71>+.14 massed repetitions+.83>+.12 single presentation+.91>+.20 Connor et al. (1997) Study 1/older adults+.88>+.44 Study 1/younger adults+.88 >+.29 Study 2/older adults+.83 >+.50 Study 2/younger adults+.82>+.57 Study 3/older adults+.78>+.49 Study 3/younger adults+.82>+.55 Dunlosky et al. (1998) nitrous oxide inhaled+.93 >+.47 placebo inhaled+.82 >+.42 Kelemen & Weaver (1997) Experiment 1+.80>+.24 Experiment 2+.77>+.40 Experiment 3+.72>+.30 Kennedy & Yorkston (2000) TBI b /list 1, group 1+.93> +.52 TBI/list 1, group 2+.90>+.41 Control/list 1, group 1+.86> +.35 Control/list 1, group 2+.82>+.48

17. adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)

18. Talk Overview Definitions and methods How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments? How do people monitor cognitive processes? How do people control cognitive processes?

19. How do people make metacognitive judgments? Direct-access hypothesis proposed by Hart (1965) Individuals monitor the memory trace of the sought-after response Prediction: Accuracy will always be above chance

20. Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz (1998) Answered trivia questions. Made a JOL for each answer: Will you recall your answer (without the question cue) in 20 minutes from now? Test of Free Recall Answers that take longer to retrieve end up with stronger memory traces Prediction from direct-access hypothesis: JOLs > for responses that take longer to retrieve

21. from Benjamin et al. (1998)

23. How do people make metacognitive judgments? Direct-access hypothesis – disconfirmed repeatedly Inference-based accounts Individuals infer whether a particular response will be (or has been) remembered based upon cues that are available when making a given judgment. Accuracy is a function of cue diagnosticity.

24. Two Prominent Inference-based Accounts For Feeling-of-Knowing Judgments What is the capitol of California? {Don’t know.} FOK = 80% chance of recognizing Cue familiarity hypothesis Accessibility hypothesis

25. Data from Metcalfe, Schwartz, and Joaquim (1993). GroupList 1 List 2 A-B, A-Bpickle – luckypickle – luckytable – picturebutter – psyche A-D, A-Bpickle – carpetpickle – lucky table – mapletable – picture butter – sandal butter – psyche Studied List 1 then List 2 Cued-recall on List 2 (critical list, identical for all groups) FOK on unrecalled items: CUES are stimuli alone (pickle - ?)

26. Predictions concerning FOK magnitude Cue familiarity hypothesis: AB,AB = AD,AB Accessibility hypothesis: AB,AB > AD,AB Data from Metcalfe, Schwartz, and Joaquim (1993). GroupList 1 List 2 % Recall FOK Magnitude A-B, A-Bpickle – luckypickle – lucky 39table – picturebutter – psyche A-D, A-Bpickle – carpetpickle – lucky 17 table – mapletable – picture butter – sandal butter – psyche

27. Predictions concerning FOK magnitude Cue familiarity hypothesis: AB,AB = AD,AB Accessibility hypothesis: AB,AB > AD,AB Data from Metcalfe, Schwartz, and Joaquim (1993). GroupList 1 List 2 % Recall FOK Magnitude A-B, A-Bpickle – luckypickle – lucky 3948table – picturebutter – psyche A-D, A-Bpickle – carpetpickle – lucky 1749 table – mapletable – picture butter – sandal butter – psyche

28. How do people make metacognitive judgments?

30. Talk Overview Definitions and methods How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments? How do people monitor cognitive processes? How do people control cognitive processes?

31. adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)

32. Controlling Study Time How do students use monitoring to allocate study time across items? Standard method Simple answer and expected finding Universal finding

33. Standard Method Items presented individually at a fixed rate elimu - science pombe - beer buu - maggot.

34. Participants make a judgment of learning Standard Method elimu - science What is the likelihood that you will recall the translation equivalent in about 10 minutes from now? (0 - 100)

35. Standard Method Item selection: Choose those items that you’d like to restudy. elimu - science pombe - beer buu - maggot. Self-paced study: Study each item as long as you’d like. elimu - science.

37. Self-regulated Learning: Theory and Data How do students use monitoring to allocate study time across items? Standard method Simple answer and expected finding Universal finding

38. Discrepancy-reduction Model Degree of Learning Desired Now Perceived Degree of Learning Change in Memory Continue Study Select Item Next Item Has Discrepancy Been Reduced? Yes No

39. Discrepancy-reduction Model Degree of Learning Desired Now Perceived Degree of Learning Change in Memory Continue Study Select Item Next Item Has Discrepancy Been Reduced? Yes No 0 100

40. Discrepancy-reduction Model Degree of Learning Desired Now Perceived Degree of Learning Change in Memory Continue Study Select Item Next Item Has Discrepancy Been Reduced? Yes No 80 100

41. Prediction Inverse relation between judged learning and measures of allocation (selection or self-paced study)

43. Self-regulated Learning: Theory and Data How do students use monitoring to allocate study time across items? Standard method Simple answer and expected finding Universal finding

44. Selection of Items for Study Research demonstrating inverse relation Baldi (1996, unpublished dissertation) Cull & Zechmeister (1994) Dunlosky & Hertzog (1997) Masur, McIntyre, & Flavell (1973) Nelson, Dunlosky, Graf, & Narens (1994) Research demonstrating positive relation None

45. Pacing of Items for Study Research demonstrating inverse relation Belmont & Butterfield (1971) Baker & Anderson (1982) Cornoldi (1990) Dufresne & Kobasigawa (1989) Dunlosky & Connor (1997) Kobasigawa & Metcalfe-Haggert (1993) Le Ny et al. (1972) Maki & Serra (1992) Mazzoni et al. (1990) Mazzoni & Cornoldi (1993) Nelson & Leonesio (1998) Owings et al. (1980) Rofoff et al. (1974)

46. Pacing of Items for Study Research demonstrating inverse relation Belmont & Butterfield (1971) Baker & Anderson (1982) Cornoldi (1990) Dufresne & Kobasigawa (1989) Dunlosky & Connor (1997) Kobasigawa & Metcalfe-Haggert (1993) Le Ny et al. (1972) Maki & Serra (1992) Mazzoni et al. (1990) Mazzoni & Cornoldi (1993) Nelson & Leonesio (1998) Owings et al. (1980) Rofoff et al. (1974)

47. Pacing of Items for Study Research demonstrating inverse relation Belmont & Butterfield (1971) Baker & Anderson (1982) Cornoldi (1990) Dufresne & Kobasigawa (1989) Dunlosky & Connor (1997) Kobasigawa & Metcalfe-Haggert (1993) Le Ny et al. (1972) Maki & Serra (1992) Mazzoni et al. (1990) Mazzoni & Cornoldi (1993) Nelson & Leonesio (1998) Owings et al. (1980) Rofoff et al. (1974)

48. Pacing of Items for Study Research demonstrating inverse relation Belmont & Butterfield (1971) Baker & Anderson (1982) Cornoldi (1990) Dufresne & Kobasigawa (1989) Dunlosky & Connor (1997) Kobasigawa & Metcalfe-Haggert (1993) Le Ny et al. (1972) Maki & Serra (1992) Mazzoni et al. (1990) Mazzoni & Cornoldi (1993) Nelson & Leonesio (1998) Owings et al. (1980) Rofoff et al. (1974) Research demonstrating positive relation None

49. Self-regulated Learning: Theory and Data How do students use monitoring to allocate study time across items? Standard method Simple answer and expected finding Universal finding: Consistent with discrepancy-reduction model

50. Under what conditions (if any) will discrepancy reduction fail to account for allocation of study time? When goal (degree of learning desired) is not to master all the items... Low performance goal Limited study time

51. DR prediction: Adaptivity hypothesis (Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999) : Individuals will plan to allocate study time to obtain the goal with minimal effort. Prediction: positive relation Inverse relation between perceived learning and allocation. When performance goal is low...

52. 30 paired associates presented individually (1 sec) Participants make judgments of learning MANIPULATION: Less difficult goal : 6 of 30 More difficult goal :24 of 30 Item selection (choose items for restudy) Self-paced study (study items that were selected) from Thiede & Dunlosky (1999, JEP:LMC)

53. Correlation between Judged Learning and Measure of Self-regulated Study

54. Correlation between Judged Learning and Measure of Self-regulated Study

55. Correlation between Judged Learning and Measure of Self-regulated Study

56. Adaptive Planning Non-mastery goal Pacing of Study Mechanism Region of proximal learning (Metcalfe, 2002) Discrepancy Reduction (Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999) Monitoring progress (Dunlosky & Thiede, 1997) Perseverance (Metcalfe & Kornell, in press)

57. Students appear to use output from monitoring to control study time in an efficient manner. Controlling Study Time

58. How do people use monitoring to control?

59. Summary Methods How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments? How do people monitor cognitive processes? How do people control cognitive processes?

60. Thank You

61. 30 paired associates presented individually (1 sec) Participants make judgments of learning MANIPULATION: Restricted study time : 15 seconds Unrestricted study time : 5 minutes Item selection (choose items for restudy) Self-paced study (study items that were selected) from Thiede & Dunlosky (1999, JEP:LMC)

62. Correlation between Judged Learning and Measure of Self-regulated Study

63. Correlation between Judged Learning and Measure of Self-regulated Study