Literature DB >> 27245926

The influence of feedback on predictions of future memory performance.

Danielle M Sitzman1, Matthew G Rhodes2, Nate Kornell3.   

Abstract

Kornell and Rhodes (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 1-13, 2013) reported that correct answer feedback impairs the accuracy of prospective memory judgments. The current experiments explored the boundaries of this effect. In Experiment 1, participants studied Lithuanian-English word pairs, took an initial test, and were either given correct answer feedback or no feedback at all. They then made a judgment of learning (JOL) regarding the likelihood of correctly recalling the English translation on a later test. Presenting the correct answer as feedback increased average JOLs but impaired relative accuracy on a final test. Therefore, Experiments 2-4 aimed to specifically ameliorate impairments in relative accuracy following feedback. Participants in Experiment 2 were exposed to right/wrong feedback, no feedback, and correct answer feedback while making JOLs. Using such a within-subjects design did not improve relative accuracy following correct answer feedback. Experiment 3 showed that previous exposure to a test-feedback-test cycle did not improve relative accuracy. In Experiment 4, feedback was scaffolded such that the correct answer was progressively revealed. Participants corrected more errors if they could generate the correct response with fewer letter cues. However, relative accuracy did not improve in comparison to the previous experiments. Accordingly, the current experiments suggest that participants may understand that feedback is beneficial, but receiving feedback diminishes prediction accuracy for specific items and participants do not appreciate the magnitude of the benefits of feedback.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Feedback; Memory; Metamemory

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27245926     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-016-0623-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  23 in total

1.  Normative multitrial recall performance, metacognitive judgments, and retrieval latencies for Lithuanian-English paired associates.

Authors:  Phillip J Grimaldi; Mary A Pyc; Katherine A Rawson
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2010-08

2.  Metacognitive errors contribute to the difficulty in remembering proper names.

Authors:  Sarah K Tauber; Matthew G Rhodes
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2010-05-22

3.  Scaffolding feedback to maximize long-term error correction.

Authors:  Bridgid Finn; Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-10

4.  Predicting one's own forgetting: the role of experience-based and theory-based processes.

Authors:  Asher Koriat; Robert A Bjork; Limor Sheffer; Sarah K Bar
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2004-12

5.  Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners' sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test.

Authors:  Asher Koriat; Robert A Bjork
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-07

6.  Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect.

Authors:  Shana K Carpenter; Edward L DeLosh
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-03

7.  The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect.

Authors:  Bridgid Finn; Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments.

Authors:  Nate Kornell; Matthew G Rhodes; Alan D Castel; Sarah K Tauber
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-05-06

9.  Feedback reduces the metacognitive benefit of tests.

Authors:  Nate Kornell; Matthew G Rhodes
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2013-03

10.  People use the memory for past-test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning.

Authors:  Michael J Serra; Robert Ariel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.