The Effects Of Presentation Order On Judgments Of Learning

The monitoring of one's own memory process not only can reflect the extent to which one has understanding the target materials,but also can influence how he allocate cognitive resources and control later study.So metamemory monitoring must plays such an important role of people's cognitive process.Successful metamemory monitoring always base on different types of metacognition judgments,especially for judgments of learning(JOLs)which are used to measure a person's monitoring of his or her own memory.Steaming from the influential cue-utilization framework,there are three kinds of cues that people may use to make JOLs.Such as the intrinsic cues,the extrinsic cues and the mnemonic cues.Intrinsic cues and extrinsic cues are expected to differentially influence JOLs.In particular,Koriat(1997)proposed that JOLs are comparative in nature.It means that JOLs tend to focus on the relative recallability of different items within a list and are less sensitive to factors that affect overall performance.Therefore,in general,the effects of extrinsic factors should bediscounted in predictions of recall to those of intrinsic factors.So many researchers concern about the effect of intrinsic-extrinsic distinction on judgments of learning.However,it remains in controversy.It is that when using font size or text clarity as intrinsic cues and manipulates the presentation order then the results are consistent with the core assumption of the cue-utilization framework which proposed that JOLs are comparative in nature.But when using relatedness as the intrinsic cues and manipulates the presentation order of it then the results are inconsistent with the core assumption of the cue-utilization framework and pose a challenge for any theory of JOLs.And the word pairs that most previous studies used were only high or low relatedness word pairs.That is to say it possibly not fully answered the question.Also the usage of metamemory monitoring measurement got the same problem,using only one kind of such index was quite not enough to reflect the whole content.Therefore,to do more research on the effects of presentation order on metamemory monitoring is of great significance.Exactly,we will use three kinds of word pairs and use aggregate JOL or item-by-item JOL to explore this phenomenon.There are three experiments in the present study.In experiment 1,we employed a between subject design one factor,i.e.presentation order(low relatedness-high relatedness,high relatedness-low relatedness,random)to investigate the effects of presentation order on metamemory monitoring.And we used aggregate JOL as the measurement of the participants' metamemory monitoring.The results of Dunlosky(2001)showed that JOLs are not comparative in nature when used relatedness as intrinsic cue.Experiment 1 will continue explore this phenomenon.The results showed that the main effect of presentation order on JOLs was reliable,that means JOLs of the group which low relatedness items were presented first was greater than that of the group which high relatedness items were presented first.Actual recall was equivalent across the three groups.This means that the order of presentation influence people's JOLs.And when consider the between-subject comparison of relatedness.JOLs were not greater for high related items presented first than for low relatedness items presented first,which is consistent with a core assumption of the cue-utilization framework.This is consistent with the core assumption of the cue-utilization framework which proposed that JOLs are comparative in nature.In experiment 2a,we used the same design as experiment 1 with two exceptions that we used item-by-item JOL as the measurement of participants' metamemory monitoring and a new relatedness(low relatedness,medium relatedness).The effects of presentation order on metamemory monitoring were examined.Also we would still analyze whether JOLs were comparative in nature.The results showed that the main effect of presentation order on JOLs was reliable,that mean JOLs of the group which low relatedness items were presented first was greater than that of the group which medium relatedness items were presented first.Actual recall was equivalent across the three groups.Second,when consider the between-subject comparison of relatedness.The magnitude of JOLs was also not greater for medium related items when presented first than for low relatedness items when presented first.This means that the core assumption of the cue-utilization framework still works under the environment of experiment 2a.In experiment 2b,we used the materials from experiment 1 and 2a to create a new group that the word pairs were presented from high relatedness items to medium relatedness items.In this experiment,we also have another group which the word pairs of it were presented from low relatedness items to medium relatedness items.We will consider the effect of presentation order on people's JOLs.And we will also consider the between-subject comparison of relatedness to test whether JOLs are comparative in nature.The results showed that the magnitude of JOLs was greater for medium relatedness items which were in the group that low relatedness items presented first than for medium relatedness items which were in the group that high relatedness items presented first.This means that the order of presentation influences people's JOLs.And we also found that the magnitude of JOLs was greater for high relatedness items which were in the group that this kind of items presented first than for low relatedness items which were in the group that low relatedness items came first.This is inconsistent with the core assumption of the cue-utilization framework.Considering all the results,conclusions were as followed:(1)Judgments of learning were influenced by the list composition.When low relatedness items were learned fist,the average JOLs were higher than that when the high or medium relatedness items were learned fist.(2)Whether JOLs were comparative in nature was influenced by the kind of learning materials and the usage of metamemory monitoring measurement.