The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 668-678

  Thomas, Ayanna Kim ^a   McDaniel, Mark A ^b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COLLEGE STUDENT; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEMORY; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; NORMAL HUMAN; READING; RECALL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 34547884242     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193305     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. ALASKA RAINFOREST CAMPAIGN (2004). Alaska rainforest: The land and its people. Retrieved September 15, 2004 from www.akrain.org/rainforest/theland.
2. BEGG, I., DUFT, S., LALONDE, P., MELNICK, R., & SANVITO, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 610-632.
3. BELMONT, J. M., & BUTTERFIELD, E. C. (1971). Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 411-420.
4. BJORK, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. BLAXTON, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 657-668.
6. CULL, W. L., & ZECHMEISTER, E. B. (1994). The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners? Memory & Cognition, 22, 249-257.
7. DUNLOSKY, J., & CONNOR, L. T. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 25, 691-700.
8. DUNLOSKY, J., & HERTZOG, C. (1997). Older and younger adults use a functionally identical algorithm to select items for restudy during multitrial learning. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 52B, P178-P186.
9. DUNLOSKY, J., & NELSON, T. O. (1997). Similarity between the cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the cue for test is not the primary determinant of JOL accuracy. Journal of Memory & Language, 36, 34-49.
10. ENGLISH-BULLDOGS.ORG (2004). English Bulldogs. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from www.english-bulldogs.org.
11. FLAVELL, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
12. GLENBERG, A. M., & EPSTEIN, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702-718.
13. GLENBERG, A. M., SANOCKI, T., EPSTEIN, W., & MORRIS, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 119-136.
14. GLENBERG, A. M., WILKINSON, A. C., & EPSTEIN, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597-602.
15. KELLAS, G., & BUTTERFIELD, E. C. (1971). Effect of response requirement and type of material on acquisition and retention performance in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 50-56.
16. KORIAT, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370.
17. LE NY, J. F. (1969). Studies of study: The effect of position in intentional learning of a series. L'Année Psychologique, 69, 81-92.
18. LE NY, J. F., DENHIERE, G., & LE TAILLANTER, D. (1972). Regulation of study-time and interstimulus similarity in self-paced learning conditions. Acta Psychologica, 36, 280-289.
19. LEVY, B. A. (1981). Interactive processes during reading. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 1-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. MAKI, R. H., & BERRY, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 663-679.
21. MAKI, R. H., FOLEY, J. M., KAJER, W. K., THOMPSON, R. C., & WILLERT, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 609-616.
22. MAKI, R. H., & SERRA, M. (1992). The basis of test predictions for text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 116-126.
23. MAZZONI, G., & CORNOLDI, C. (1993). Strategies in study-time allocation: Why is study time sometimes not effective? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 47-60.
24. MAZZONI, G., CORNOLDI, C., & MARCHITELLI, G. (1990). Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? Memory & Cognition, 18, 196-204.
25. MAZZONI, G., CORNOLDI, C., TOMAT, L., & VECCHI, T. (1997). Remembering the grocery shopping list: A study on metacognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 253-267.
26. MCDANIEL, M. A. (2007). Rediscovering transfer as a central concept. In H. L. Roediger III, Y. Dudai, & S. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Science of memory: Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. MCDANIEL, M. A., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (2005). Material appropriate difficulty: A framework for determining when difficulty is desirable for improving learning. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 73-85). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
28. MCDANIEL, M. A., FRIEDMAN, A., & BOURNE, L. E., JR. (1978). Remembering the levels of information in words. Memory & Cognition, 6, 156-164.
29. MCDANIEL, M. A., HINES, R. J., WADDILL, P. J., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (1994). What makes folk tales unique: Content familiarity, causal structure, scripts, or superstructures? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 169-184.
30. MCDANIEL, M. A., WADDILL, P. J., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (1988). A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 521-536.
31. MCNAMARA, D. S., & HEALY, A. F. (1995). A procedural explanation of the generation effect: The use of an operand retrieval strategy for multiplication and addition problems. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 399-416.
32. MORRIS, C. D., BRANSFORD, J. D., & FRANKS, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.
33. MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, BOSTON (2004). Leonardo da Vinci, Renaissance man. Retrieved September 15, 2004 from www.mos.org/leonardo/bio.html.
34. NAIRNE, J. S., & WIDNER, R. L. (1987). Generation effects with non-words: The role of test appropriateness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 13, 164-171.
35. NELSON, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109-133.
36. NELSON, T. O., DUNLOSKY, J., GRAF, A., & NARENS, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207-213.
37. 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, & Cognition, 14, 676-686.
38. RUDELL, R. B., & SPEAKER, R. B., JR. (1985). The interactive reading process: A model. In H. Singer & R. B. Rudell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 751-793). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
39. SON, L. K., & METCALFE, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 204-221.
40. STATE OF HAWAII, DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (2004). Sharks of Hawaii. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/sharintr.html#forty.
41. THIEDE, K. W., & ANDERSON, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129-160.
42. THIEDE, K. W., ANDERSON, M. C. M., & THERRIAULT, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
43. THIEDE, K. W., & DUNLOSKY, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 1024-1037.
44. WEAVER, C. A., III (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 214-222.
45. WEAVER, C. A., III, & BRYANT, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23, 12-22.
46. WEAVER, C. A., III, & KELEMEN, W. L. (2003). Processing similarity does not improve metamemory: Evidence against transfer-appropriate monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1058-1065.
47. ZACKS, R. T. (1969). Invariance of total learning time under different conditions of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 441-447.