When Predictions Create Reality: Judgments of Learning May Alter What They Are Intended to Assess
- 1 September 1992
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Psychological Science
- Vol. 3 (5), 315-317
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00680.x
Abstract
Nelson and Dunlosky ( Psychological Science, July 1991) reported that subjects making judgments of learning (JOLs) can be extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall performance on a paired-associate task when the JOL task is delayed for a short while after study They argued that this result is surprising given the results of earlier research, as well as their own current experiment, indicating that JOLs are quite inaccurate when made immediately after study We note that the delayed-JOL procedure used by Nelson and Dunlosky invited covert recall practice (which was reported by their subjects) Retrieval practice is a well-known determinant of subsequent recall Accordingly, Nelson and Dunloskys findings can be explained by the simple assumption that people base delayed JOLs on an assessment of retrieval success which in turn influences their retrieval success on the subsequent recall testKeywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- When People's Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are Extremely Accurate at Predicting Subsequent Recall: The “Delayed-JOL Effect”Psychological Science, 1991
- Judgments of Knowing: The Influence of Retrieval PracticeThe American Journal of Psychology, 1980
- On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solutionJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978
- Learning from tests: Effects of spacingJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977
- Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired associatesJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969