Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Bowling Green State University, 2019, Psychology/Experimental

The present study aimed to reconcile two hypothetical mechanisms driving JOL delay effects. The first hypothesis is the monitoring-dual-memories (MDM) hypothesis proposed by Dunlosky and Nelson (1992), which states that increased accuracy of delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) occurs because delayed JOLs activate the same memory storage system as the memory task itself (i.e., long-term memory). The second hypothesis is the accessibility model proposed by Koriat (1993) which states that delayed JOLs are more accurate because they increase retrieval fluency by reinforcing memory activation. Fluency research (e.g., Ball, Klein, & Brewer, 2014; Mueller, Dunlosky, Tauber, & Rhodes, 2014; Reber & Greifeneder, 2017) has not previously applied the accessibility model, but the model may explain fluency's effects on metacognitive illusions, such that increased processing leads to increased encoding fluency creating a false sense of knowing. This dissertation presents two experiments and a combined analysis in which I investigated the effects of fluency and JOL delay on the size of metacognitive illusions measured in ways that replicated previous research and in ways that are novel in learning research. Through an interaction between JOL timing and fluency, the MDM hypothesis explains the retrieval side of the memory process whereas the accessibility model explains the encoding side of the memory process. The remainder of the findings generally supported the MDM hypothesis. The present results also established a new avenue for investigating metacognitive illusions and call into question the findings of previous research. Specifically, participants' prediction of their future memory performance may not be as poor as previously thought. Implications for these findings and future directions are discussed.

Committee: Richard Anderson Dr. (Advisor); Lynn Darby Dr. (Other); Dale Klopfer Dr. (Committee Member); Laura Leventhal Dr. (Committee Member) Subjects: Psychology

MA, Kent State University, 2018, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Psychological Sciences

Why does making judgments of learning (JOLs) influence subsequent memory, and when learners make JOLs for some items but not others, how is recall performance affected? To answer these questions, participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for half. Pair type was either randomly intermixed within a list (Experiment 1) or blocked (Experiment 2). I evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis, proposed by Mitchum, Kelley, and Fox (J Exp Psychol Gen, 2016), states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in item difficulty and allocate more resources to learning easier pairs, ultimately leading to higher recall for easier (i.e., related) pairs and impaired recall for more difficult (i.e., unrelated) pairs. In contrast, the positive-reactivity hypothesis predicts increased recall performance for both related and unrelated pairs. As predicted by the positive-reactivity hypothesis, recall performance was higher for pairs that were judged versus not judged on both a mixed and blocked list of related and unrelated pairs. In Experiment 3, I evaluated one proximal mechanism for increased performance for judged pairs: The use of more effective encoding strategies during acquisition. Making JOLs did not influence strategy use, which suggests that the benefit of making JOLs on memory performance results from increased attention. These and other findings converge to support the claim that the requirement to monitor learning benefits memory.

Committee: John Dunlosky (Advisor); Maria Zaragoza (Committee Member); Katherine Rawson (Committee Member); William Lechner (Committee Member) Subjects: Cognitive Psychology; Psychology

PHD, Kent State University, 2016, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Psychological Sciences

People generally believe that more fluently performing a task is related to better task performance. Thus, when studying items for an upcoming test, items that are allegedly more easily processed are judged to be more memorable. According to analytic-processing theory, when people are asked to judge their future memory performance, they search for cues – including those that allegedly reveal differences in processing fluency – that will help them reduce their uncertainty in how well they will remember each pair. Thus, a critical prediction is that if people believe a cue will impact fluency, then they also will predict that the cue will influence memory, even when it does not impact either. To test this prediction, I had participants make predictions of future memory performance for words presented in different colors (blue or green), because the different colors were not expected to impact processing fluency or memory. During the task instructions, some participants were led to believe that one color was easier to process than another, but nothing was mentioned about whether color was related to memory. Across seven experiments, color did not consistently influence final test performance. Most important, people's judgments were significantly higher for the color that had been associated with more fluent processing during the instructions. This and other evidence supports analytic-processing theory and suggests that using fluency to explain cue effects on memory predictions should be done with caution, because people's beliefs about fluency could be mistaken for true fluency effects.

Committee: John Dunlosky (Advisor) Subjects: Psychology

PHD, Kent State University, 2012, College of Education, Health and Human Services / School of Lifespan Development and Educational Sciences

One way to improve students¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ academic performance is to improve their reading comprehension. Previous investigations demonstrated that testing students on learning material as well as having them use metacognitive strategies have independently improved reading comprehension. The test used in the learning phase in previous investigates has typically been experimenter created. In the proposed study, free recall of recently read text was used as the test in the learning phase. A second important aspect of the current investigation is the inaccuracy of students¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ meta-comprehension judgments. Although use of metacognitive strategies does improve academic performance, students often make inaccurate judgments about what they know and are particularly inaccurate in their assessment of text comprehension. The aim of this study was to determine if free recall was an effective testing strategy for learning of text and long-term retention. Also, this study explored if self-selection of material versus experimenter- selection of restudy material improved long-term retention. Finally, this study explored the relationship between judgments of learning and re-study choices. Free recall did not improve participants reading comprehension, long-term retention and the accuracy of their judgments of learning in comparison to rereading the material. Participants who selected their restudy materials did not outperform those who did not select their restudy materials.

Committee: Christopher Was PhD (Committee Chair); Drew Tiene PhD (Committee Member); John Dunlosky PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Educational Psychology

PHD, Kent State University, 2011, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Psychological Sciences

Preschoolers' ability to make judgments of learning (JOLs) was examined in three experiments in which they were taught proper names for various animals. In Experiment 1, when judgments were made immediately after a name had been taught, nearly every child predicted subsequent recall of every name. When judgments were made after a delay of a few minutes, fewer (14 of 29) showed this response tendency. The delayed JOLs of those who predicted at least one recall failure were still overconfident, however, and were not correlated with final recall. In Experiment 2, children received a second study trial with feedback, made yes-no JOLs after a delay, and then completed a forced-choice task. In the forced choice task, an animal whose name had been recalled previously was pitted against an animal whose name had not been recalled. Compared to Experiment 1, more children predicted at least one recall failure, and predictions were moderately accurate. In the forced choice task, well-learned items were readily distinguished from less well-learned ones, even by children whose yes-no JOLs had been inaccurate. Experiment 3 examined the effect of providing an additional retrieval attempt with feedback on delayed JOLs. Half of the children received a single study session and the others received an additional study session with feedback. The number who predicted at least one recall failure did not vary by group. However, children in the practice group showed less overconfidence than children in the no practice group. In the forced-choice task, both groups showed the same high level of performance as the children in Experiment 2.

Committee: Dr. William E. Merriman (Advisor); Dr. John Dunlosky (Advisor); Dr. Katherine Rawson (Committee Member); Dr. Beth Wildman (Committee Member); Dr. Christopher Was (Committee Member); Dr. Janice Kroeger (Committee Member) Subjects: Cognitive Psychology; Developmental Psychology

MA, Kent State University, 2010, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Psychological Sciences

When people judge their learning of items across study-test trials, their accuracy in discriminating between learned and unlearned items improves on the second trial. We examined the source of this improvement by estimating the contribution of three factors—memory for past test performance (MPT), new learning, and forgetting—to accuracy on trial 2. In Experiment 1, during two trials, participants studied paired associates, made a judgment of learning (JOL) for each one, and were tested. During the second study trial, we manipulated two variables: When the JOL was made (either immediately before or after studying an item) and whether participants were told the outcome of the previous recall attempt. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was used with a one week retention interval between study and test on trial 2. In both experiments, JOL resolution was higher on trial 2 then on trial 1. Fine-grained analyses of JOL magnitude and decomposition of resolution revealed several important findings. First, MPT contributed most to boosts in JOL magnitude and improvements in resolution across trials. Second, JOLs and subsequent resolution were sensitive to new learning and forgetting, but only when participants' judgments were made after and not before study. Thus, JOLs appear to integrate information from multiple factors, and these factors jointly contribute to JOL resolution.

Committee: John Dunlosky (Advisor); Maria Zaragoza (Committee Member); William Merriman (Committee Member); John Gunstad (Committee Member) Subjects: Psychology