Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prompting retrieval during monitoring and self-regulated learning in older and younger adults

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluated age differences in the relationship between judgments of learning (JOLs) and the choice to restudy a subset of items under two conditions: 1) when a retrieval attempt was explicitly prompted during monitoring; 2) when a retrieval attempt was not explicitly prompted. Young and older adults studied unrelated word pairs. Item-by-item cue-only judgments followed, where participants either attempted to recall the target before providing a JOL or only provided a JOL. After the monitoring phase, participants reported how many total items they wanted to restudy. However, during the selection phase, participants selected half of the presented items to restudy. After restudying selected items, participants received a final cued recall test. Requiring individuals to attempt retrieval increased monitoring reaction times (RT) and decreased JOL magnitude, but did not affect self-regulated learning. For both monitoring groups, individuals were more likely to select items they rated with lower JOLs and items that they spent more time monitoring (i.e., greater RTs). In addition, older adults demonstrated a weaker negative relationship between JOLs and restudy selections, but no difference in the relationship between RTs and restudy selections, compared to young adults. Older adults also indicated wanting to restudy more total items than younger adults. Explicitly prompting retrieval during monitoring did not impact these observed age effects, or interestingly, final test performance. Overall, the results of this study suggest that prompting explicit retrieval prior to monitoring may have little direct effect on self-regulated learning or final test performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We compared average JOLs for the excluded sets to average JOLs for the included set of cues via paired-samples t-test and found no significant difference between the two, MExcluded = .38 SD = .22, MIncluded = .38 SD = .22, t(107) = 0.24, p = .81. The excluded sets were not rated as more or less difficult to remember (as indicated by average JOLs) than the sets of cues included in the selection phase.

  2. Data coding was the same for all GLMMs. JOLs were transformed into units of 10 (e.g., 10% was transformed into ‘1’) and were lower-limited centered. Young adults and the JOL Only group were the referents.

References

  • Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D., Middlebrooks, C. D., & McGillivray, S. (2016). Monitoring memory in old age: Impaired, spared, and aware. In J. Dunlosky & S. (Uma) K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.3.

  • Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M., Byrd, M., & Swanson, J. M. (1987). Patterns of memory loss in three elderly samples. Psychology and Aging, 2(1), 79–86. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/10.1037/0882-7974.2.1.79

  • DeCaro, R., & Thomas, A. K. (2019). How attributes and cues made accessible through monitoring affect self-regulated learning in older and younger adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9186-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Older and younger adults use a functionally identical algorithm to select items for restudy during multitrial learning. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(4), P178–P186.

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20(4), 374–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00051-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Kubat-Silman, A. K., & Hertzog, C. (2003). Training monitoring skills improves older adults’ self-paced associative learning. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. C., & Charness, N. (2010). How to gain eleven IQ points in ten minutes: Thinking aloud improves Raven’s matrices performance in older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(2), 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froger, C., Bouazzaoui, B., Isingrini, M., & Taconnat, L. (2012). Study time allocation deficit of older adults: The role of environmental support at encoding? Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grober, E., Sliwinsk, M., & Korey, S. R. (1991). Development and validation of a model for estimating premorbid verbal intelligence in the elderly. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 13(6), 933–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639108405109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Metacognition in later adulthood: Spared monitoring can benefit older adults’ self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411409026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, C., Kidder, D. P., Powell-Moman, A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Aging and monitoring associative learning: Is monitoring accuracy spared or impaired? Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J. C., Touron, D. R., & Hertzog, C. (2009). Metacognitive influences on study time allocation in an associative recognition task: An analysis of adult age differences. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J. C., Hertzog, C., & Touron, D. R. (2015). Younger and older adults weigh multiple cues in a similar manner to generate judgments of learning. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22(6), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2015.1028884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, D. R., Smith, T. A., & Muntean, W. J. (2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 923–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolers, P. A., & Palef, S. R. (1976). Knowing not. Memory & Cognition, 4(5), 553–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma’ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increasedunderconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.131.2.147.

  • Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., Bless, H., & Shaked, N. (2008). Information-based and experience-based metacognitive judgments: Evidence from subjective confidence. A Handbook of Memory and Metamemory, 117–136.

  • Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H. (1999). The roles of competition, target accessibility, and cue familiarity in metamemory for word pairs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1011–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(4), 851–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2014). Improving metacognitive accuracy: How failing to retrieve practice items reduces overconfidence. Consciousness and Cognition, 29, 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchum, A. L., Kelley, C. M., & Fox, M. C. (2016). When asking the question changes the ultimate answer: Metamemory judgments change memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the" labor-in-vain effect.". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 676–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bowers (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). Academic Press.

  • Nelson, H. E., & Willison, J. (1991). National Adult Reading Test (NART). Nfer-Nelson Windsor. http://www.academia.edu/download/31611053/NART_MANUAL.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004a). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., Narens, L., & Dunlosky, J. (2004b). A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment recall and monitoring (PRAM). Psychological Methods, 9(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. (2017). The impact of presentation format on younger and older adults’ self-regulated learning. Experimental Aging Research, 43(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2017.1333835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J., & Murray, R. G. (2012). The region of proximal learning heuristic and adult age differences in self-regulated learning. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 1120–1129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J., Hertzog, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Self-regulated learning in younger and older adults: Does aging affect metacognitive control? Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(3), 329–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580903287941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rast, P., & Zimprich, D. (2009). Age differences in the Underconfidence-with-practice effect. Experimental Aging Research, 35(4), 400–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730903175782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, A. M., Dougherty, M. R., & Buttaccio, D. R. (2017). Making retrospective confidence judgments improves learners’ ability to decide what not to study. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1683–1693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthouse, T. (2010). Major issues in cognitive aging. Oxford University Press.

  • Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological Probems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93–113). MIT Press.

  • Schwartz, B. L., Boduroglu, A., & Tekcan, A. İ. (2016). Methodological concerns: The feeling-of-knowing task affects resolution. Metacognition and Learning, 11(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9152-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1116–1129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souchay, C., & Isingrini, M. (2012). Are feeling-of-knowing and judgment-of-learning different? Evidence from older adults. Acta Psychologica, 139(3), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2012). Multiple bases for young and older adults’ judgments of learning in multitrial learning. Psychology and Aging, 27(2), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. K., Lee, M., & Balota, D. A. (2013). Metacognitive monitoring and dementia: How intrinsic and extrinsic cues influence judgments of learning in people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 27(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, C.-S., Balota, D. A., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face-name pairs in healthy older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(4), 833–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 743–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, K. E., Hausman, H., & Kornell, N. (2017). Retrieval attempts enhance learning regardless of time spent trying to retrieve. Memory; Hove, 25(3), 298–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1170152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, D., & Usher, M. (2003). Dynamics of metacognitive judgments: Pre-and postretrieval mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3): 339.

  • Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. L., Thorn, R. M., & Bagwell, D. K. (2003). Memory performance and beliefs as a function of goal setting and aging. Psychology and Aging, 18(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.1.111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachary, R. A. (1991). Shipley institute of living scale. Western Psychological Services: WPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakay, D., & Tuvia, R. (1998). Choice latency times as determinants of post-decisional confidence. Acta Psychologica, 98(1), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The experiment reported was included in the first author’s Master’s Thesis. Portions of this work were presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Renée DeCaro & Ayanna K. Thomas

Authors
  1. Renée DeCaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayanna K. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renée DeCaro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Tufts University Institutional Review Board (IRB #1303045).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained for all participants in line with ethical standards for the collection of data with human subjects.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DeCaro, R., Thomas, A.K. Prompting retrieval during monitoring and self-regulated learning in older and younger adults. Metacognition Learning 15, 367–390 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09230-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09230-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation