Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?
Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning? Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2021-04, Vol.229 (2), p.104-119 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 119 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 104 |
container_title | Zeitschrift für Psychologie |
container_volume | 229 |
creator | Dunlosky, John Mueller, Michael L. Morehead, Kayla Tauber, Sarah K. Thiede, Keith W. Metcalfe, Janet |
description | Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning?
Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may
not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit
restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will
not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied,
(b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their
accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the
contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more
ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance
restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles
the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1027/2151-2604/a000441 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2516330591</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2516330591</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a310t-ac3025c7a7b9d98a4cd866f96df283400969e4fc443834a24dea5cc97db3c4d13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kFtLwzAYhoMoOKc_wLuAt9bl1LS5kjHnFDbdhYfLkH1NtaNratKi9dfbsuHVd-A9wIPQJSU3lLBkwmhMIyaJmBhCiBD0CI3-f8fDrkiU8oScorMQtoRIxiQfobf3zw7fORvw_AdsWdqqwStXFY3zRfWBpwCtN9DhJ9fgafltuoDX3mUtWLwwRRVwUeGV3Tnf4bX1ufM7U4G9PUcnuSmDvTjMMXq9n7_MHqLl8-JxNl1GhlPSRAY4YTEkJtmoTKVGQJZKmSuZ5SzlghAllRU5CMH70zCRWRMDqCTbcBAZ5WN0tc-tvftqbWj01rW-6is1i6nknMRqUNG9CrwLwdtc177YGd9pSvSATw-o9IBKH_D1nuu9x9RG16ED45sCSht6IL6npH_zWjOmNOsTBP8DhFJxxQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2516330591</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?</title><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>PsyJOURNALS</source><creator>Dunlosky, John ; Mueller, Michael L. ; Morehead, Kayla ; Tauber, Sarah K. ; Thiede, Keith W. ; Metcalfe, Janet</creator><creatorcontrib>Dunlosky, John ; Mueller, Michael L. ; Morehead, Kayla ; Tauber, Sarah K. ; Thiede, Keith W. ; Metcalfe, Janet</creatorcontrib><description>Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning?
Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may
not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit
restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will
not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied,
(b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their
accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the
contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more
ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance
restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles
the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2190-8370</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2151-2604</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000441</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hogrefe Publishing</publisher><subject>Human ; Judgment ; Learning ; Memory ; Metacognition ; Self-Regulated Learning ; Self-Regulation</subject><ispartof>Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2021-04, Vol.229 (2), p.104-119</ispartof><rights>2021 Hogrefe Publishing</rights><rights>2021, Hogrefe Publishing</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a310t-ac3025c7a7b9d98a4cd866f96df283400969e4fc443834a24dea5cc97db3c4d13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a310t-ac3025c7a7b9d98a4cd866f96df283400969e4fc443834a24dea5cc97db3c4d13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dunlosky, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mueller, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morehead, Kayla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tauber, Sarah K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thiede, Keith W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metcalfe, Janet</creatorcontrib><title>Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?</title><title>Zeitschrift für Psychologie</title><description>Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning?
Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may
not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit
restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will
not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied,
(b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their
accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the
contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more
ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance
restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles
the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy.</description><subject>Human</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>Self-Regulated Learning</subject><subject>Self-Regulation</subject><issn>2190-8370</issn><issn>2151-2604</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kFtLwzAYhoMoOKc_wLuAt9bl1LS5kjHnFDbdhYfLkH1NtaNratKi9dfbsuHVd-A9wIPQJSU3lLBkwmhMIyaJmBhCiBD0CI3-f8fDrkiU8oScorMQtoRIxiQfobf3zw7fORvw_AdsWdqqwStXFY3zRfWBpwCtN9DhJ9fgafltuoDX3mUtWLwwRRVwUeGV3Tnf4bX1ufM7U4G9PUcnuSmDvTjMMXq9n7_MHqLl8-JxNl1GhlPSRAY4YTEkJtmoTKVGQJZKmSuZ5SzlghAllRU5CMH70zCRWRMDqCTbcBAZ5WN0tc-tvftqbWj01rW-6is1i6nknMRqUNG9CrwLwdtc177YGd9pSvSATw-o9IBKH_D1nuu9x9RG16ED45sCSht6IL6npH_zWjOmNOsTBP8DhFJxxQ</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Dunlosky, John</creator><creator>Mueller, Michael L.</creator><creator>Morehead, Kayla</creator><creator>Tauber, Sarah K.</creator><creator>Thiede, Keith W.</creator><creator>Metcalfe, Janet</creator><general>Hogrefe Publishing</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?</title><author>Dunlosky, John ; Mueller, Michael L. ; Morehead, Kayla ; Tauber, Sarah K. ; Thiede, Keith W. ; Metcalfe, Janet</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a310t-ac3025c7a7b9d98a4cd866f96df283400969e4fc443834a24dea5cc97db3c4d13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Human</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>Self-Regulated Learning</topic><topic>Self-Regulation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dunlosky, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mueller, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morehead, Kayla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tauber, Sarah K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thiede, Keith W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metcalfe, Janet</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Zeitschrift für Psychologie</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dunlosky, John</au><au>Mueller, Michael L.</au><au>Morehead, Kayla</au><au>Tauber, Sarah K.</au><au>Thiede, Keith W.</au><au>Metcalfe, Janet</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?</atitle><jtitle>Zeitschrift für Psychologie</jtitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>229</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>104</spage><epage>119</epage><pages>104-119</pages><issn>2190-8370</issn><eissn>2151-2604</eissn><abstract>Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning?
Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may
not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit
restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will
not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied,
(b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their
accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the
contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more
ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance
restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles
the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy.</abstract><pub>Hogrefe Publishing</pub><doi>10.1027/2151-2604/a000441</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2190-8370 |
ispartof | Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2021-04, Vol.229 (2), p.104-119 |
issn | 2190-8370 2151-2604 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2516330591 |
source | EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES; PsyJOURNALS |
subjects | Human Judgment Learning Memory Metacognition Self-Regulated Learning Self-Regulation |
title | Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T19%3A46%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20Does%20Excellent%20Monitoring%20Accuracy%20Not%20Always%20Produce%20Gains%20in%20Memory%20Performance?&rft.jtitle=Zeitschrift%20f%C3%BCr%20Psychologie&rft.au=Dunlosky,%20John&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=229&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=104&rft.epage=119&rft.pages=104-119&rft.issn=2190-8370&rft.eissn=2151-2604&rft_id=info:doi/10.1027/2151-2604/a000441&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2516330591%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2516330591&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |