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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2021-04, Vol.229 (2), p.104-119
Hauptverfasser: Dunlosky, John, Mueller, Michael L., Morehead, Kayla, Tauber, Sarah K., Thiede, Keith W., Metcalfe, Janet
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