Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.
-
Upload
letitia-mckenzie -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.
![Page 1: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Human Metacognition
John Dunlosky
Kent State University
![Page 2: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Talk Overview
• Definitions and methods
• How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments?
• How do people monitor cognitive processes?
• How do people control cognitive processes?
![Page 3: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• monitoring cognition
• controlling cognition
Metacognitive Components
• knowledge about cognition
![Page 4: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)
![Page 5: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Monitoring and control of learning and memory processes and products
Metamemory
General Overviews
Dunlosky (2004) In Hunt & Ellis, Fundamentalsof Cognitive Psychology.
Metcalfe (2000). In Tulving & Craik, The Oxford Handbook of Memory.
![Page 6: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)
![Page 7: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Talk Overview
• Definitions and methods
• How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments?
• How do people monitor cognitive processes?
• How do people control cognitive processes?
![Page 8: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Judgment of Learning
How confident are you that in about 10minutes from now you will recall the secondword 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 - spoon dog - ?
study JOL
![Page 9: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
. . .. . .
![Page 10: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Talk Overview
• Definitions and methods
• How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments?
• How do people monitor cognitive processes?
• How do people control cognitive processes?
![Page 11: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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 2Hertzog 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
![Page 13: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
study
dog - spoon dog - ?
Immediate Judgment of Learning
study
dog - spoon dog - ?
Test
about 10 min
![Page 14: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
study
dog - spoon dog - ?
Immediate Judgment of Learning
study
dog - spoon dog - ?
Test
about 10 min
study
dog - spoon dog - ?
Delayed Judgment of Learning
about 30 sec
![Page 15: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Younger adults
Older adults
Immediate Delayed
Acc
urac
y: C
orre
latio
n be
twee
n Ju
dgm
ent
and
Rec
all P
erfo
rman
ce
Immediate Delayed
Acc
urac
y:
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Judg
men
tan
d R
ecal
l Per
form
ance
1
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
Connor et al. (1997)
![Page 16: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Predictive accuracy of immediate and delayed judgments of learning
Metamemory Performance (gamma for JOL accuracy)
Delayed Immediate
Nelson & Dunlosky (1991) +.90 > +.38Dunlosky & Nelson (1992) +.93 > +.45Thiede & Dunlosky (1994) recall +.86 > +.63Dunlosky & Nelson (1994) interactive imagery +.72 > +.10 rote rehearsal +.93 > +.29 distributed repetitions +.71 > +.14 massed repetitions +.83 > +.12 single presentation +.91 > +.20Connor 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 > +.55Dunlosky et al. (1998) nitrous oxide inhaled +.93 > +.47 placebo inhaled +.82 > +.42Kelemen & Weaver (1997) Experiment 1 +.80 > +.24 Experiment 2 +.77 > +.40 Experiment 3 +.72 > +.30Kennedy & Yorkston (2000) TBIb/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
![Page 17: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)
![Page 18: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Talk Overview
• Definitions and methods
• How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments?
• How do people monitor cognitive processes?
• How do people control cognitive processes?
![Page 19: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
How do people make metacognitive judgments?
• Direct-access hypothesis
proposed by Hart (1965)
Individuals monitor the memorytrace of the sought-after response
Prediction: Accuracy will always be above chance
![Page 20: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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 withstronger memory traces
Prediction from direct-access hypothesis:
JOLs > for responses that take longer to retrieve
![Page 21: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
from Benjamin et al. (1998)
![Page 22: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
from Benjamin et al. (1998)
![Page 23: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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.
![Page 24: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Two Prominent Inference-based AccountsFor Feeling-of-Knowing Judgments
What is the capitol of California? {Don’t know.}
FOK = 80% chance of recognizing
Cue familiarity hypothesis
Accessibility hypothesis
![Page 25: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Data from Metcalfe, Schwartz, and Joaquim (1993).
Group List 1 List 2
A-B, A-B pickle – lucky pickle – luckytable – picture table – picture butter – psyche butter – psyche
A-D, A-B pickle – carpet pickle – lucky
table – maple table – 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 - ?)
![Page 26: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Predictions concerning FOK magnitude
Cue familiarity hypothesis: AB,AB = AD,AB
Accessibility hypothesis: AB,AB > AD,AB
Data from Metcalfe, Schwartz, and Joaquim (1993).
Group List 1 List 2 % Recall FOK Magnitude
A-B, A-B pickle – lucky pickle – lucky 39table – picture table – picture butter – psyche butter – psyche
A-D, A-B pickle – carpet pickle – lucky 17
table – maple table – picture butter – sandal butter – psyche
![Page 27: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Predictions concerning FOK magnitude
Cue familiarity hypothesis: AB,AB = AD,AB
Accessibility hypothesis: AB,AB > AD,AB
Data from Metcalfe, Schwartz, and Joaquim (1993).
Group List 1 List 2 % Recall FOK Magnitude
A-B, A-B pickle – lucky pickle – lucky 39 48table – picture table – picture butter – psyche butter – psyche
A-D, A-B pickle – carpet pickle – lucky 17 49
table – maple table – picture butter – sandal butter – psyche
![Page 28: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
How do people make metacognitive judgments?
![Page 29: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Talk Overview
• Definitions and methods
• How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments?
• How do people monitor cognitive processes?
• How do people control cognitive processes?
![Page 31: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
adapted from Nelson & Narens (1990)
![Page 32: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Controlling Study Time
How do students use monitoring to allocate study time across items?
• Standard method
• Simple answer and expected finding
• Universal finding
![Page 33: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Standard Method
Items presented individually at a fixed rate
elimu - science
pombe - beer
buu - maggot. .
.
![Page 34: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Participants make a judgment of learning
Standard Method
. . .
elimu - science
What is the likelihood that you will recall the translationequivalent in about 10 minutes from now? (0 - 100)
![Page 35: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Standard Method
Item selection:Choose those items thatyou’d like to restudy.
elimu - science
pombe - beer
buu - maggot . . .
Self-paced study:Study each item as longas you’d like.
elimu - science . . .
![Page 36: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Items
Sample Data from 1 Participant
elimu-science
pombe-beer
ndoo-bucket
zeituni-honor
kaputula-shorts
Judged Learning
0
80
60
0
20
Selection
1
0
0
1
1
Allocation (sec)
5.1
2.0
2.8
6.2
3.3
. . .. . .
![Page 37: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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
![Page 38: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Discrepancy-reduction Model
Degree ofLearning
Desired Now
PerceivedDegree ofLearning
Change inMemory
ContinueStudy
Select Item
Next Item
HasDiscrepancy
Been Reduced?Yes
No
![Page 39: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Discrepancy-reduction Model
Degree ofLearning
Desired Now
PerceivedDegree ofLearning
Change inMemory
ContinueStudy
Select Item
Next Item
HasDiscrepancy
Been Reduced?Yes
No
0
100
![Page 40: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Discrepancy-reduction Model
Degree ofLearning
Desired Now
PerceivedDegree ofLearning
Change inMemory
ContinueStudy
Select Item
Next Item
HasDiscrepancy
Been Reduced?Yes
No
80
100
![Page 41: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Prediction
Inverse relation between judged learning and measures of allocation
(selection or self-paced study)
![Page 42: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Items
Sample Data from 1 Participant
elimu-science
pombe-beer
ndoo-bucket
zeituni-honor
kaputula-shorts
Judged Learning
0
80
60
0
20
Selection
1
0
0
1
1
Allocation (sec)
5.1
2.0
2.8
6.2
3.3
. . .. . .
![Page 43: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
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
![Page 44: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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
![Page 45: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Pacing of Items for Study
Research demonstrating inverse relationBelmont & 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)
![Page 46: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Pacing of Items for Study
Research demonstrating inverse relationBelmont & 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)
![Page 47: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Pacing of Items for Study
Research demonstrating inverse relationBelmont & 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)
![Page 48: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Pacing of Items for Study
Research demonstrating inverse relationBelmont & 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 relationNone
![Page 49: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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
![Page 50: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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
![Page 51: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
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 perceivedlearning and allocation.
When performance goal is low...
![Page 52: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
30 paired associates presented individually (1 sec)
Participants make judgments of learning
MANIPULATION:Less difficult goal : 6 of 30More 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)
![Page 53: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Allocation of study time
Item selection
More-difficult Goal
Less-difficult Goal
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Per
ceiv
ed It
em D
iffic
ulty
an
d M
easu
res
of S
tudy
Allo
catio
nC
orre
latio
n be
twee
n Ju
dged
Lea
rnin
g an
dM
easu
re o
f S
elf-
regu
late
d S
tudy
![Page 54: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Allocation of study time
Item selection
More-difficult Goal
Less-difficult Goal
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Per
ceiv
ed It
em D
iffic
ulty
an
d M
easu
res
of S
tudy
Allo
catio
nC
orre
latio
n be
twee
n Ju
dged
Lea
rnin
g an
dM
easu
re o
f S
elf-
regu
late
d S
tudy
![Page 55: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Allocation of study time
Item selection
More-difficult Goal
Less-difficult Goal
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Per
ceiv
ed It
em D
iffic
ulty
an
d M
easu
res
of S
tudy
Allo
catio
nC
orre
latio
n be
twee
n Ju
dged
Lea
rnin
g an
dM
easu
re o
f S
elf-
regu
late
d S
tudy
![Page 56: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
AdaptivePlanning
Non-masterygoal
Pacing ofStudy
Mechanism
Region ofproximal learning(Metcalfe, 2002)
Discrepancy Reduction (Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999)
Monitoring progress (Dunlosky & Thiede, 1997)
Perseverance (Metcalfe & Kornell, in press)
![Page 57: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Students appear to use output frommonitoring to control study time in an efficient manner.
Controlling Study Time
![Page 58: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
How do people use monitoring to control?
![Page 59: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Summary
• Methods
• How accurate are people’s monitoring judgments?
• How do people monitor cognitive processes?
• How do people control cognitive processes?
![Page 60: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Thank You
![Page 61: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
30 paired associates presented individually (1 sec)
Participants make judgments of learning
MANIPULATION:Restricted study time : 15 secondsUnrestricted study time : 5 minutes
Item selection (choose items for restudy)
Self-paced study (study items that were selected)
from Thiede & Dunlosky (1999, JEP:LMC)
![Page 62: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Allocation of study time
Item selection
Unrestricted Study Time
Restricted
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Per
ceiv
ed It
em D
iffic
ulty
an
d M
easu
res
of S
elf-
regu
late
d S
tudy
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Judg
ed L
earn
ing
and
Mea
sure
of
Sel
f-re
gula
ted
Stu
dy
![Page 63: Human Metacognition John Dunlosky Kent State University.](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051417/56649ccd5503460f9499890a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Allocation of study time
Item selection
Unrestricted Study Time
Restricted
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Per
ceiv
ed It
em D
iffic
ulty
an
d M
easu
res
of S
elf-
regu
late
d S
tudy
Cor
rela
tion
betw
een
Judg
ed L
earn
ing
and
Mea
sure
of
Sel
f-re
gula
ted
Stu
dy