Judgment-of-Learning Task¶
HED task ID: hedtsk_judgment_of_learning
Family: Metacognition, agency and interoception tasks
Also known as: JOL Task, Judgment-of-Learning Paradigm, Metacognitive Prediction Task
After studying each item, participants predict the likelihood they will recall it on a later test; calibration and resolution of these predictions index metacognitive monitoring of encoding.
Description¶
The Judgment-of-Learning task measures the accuracy of metacognitive predictions made during or shortly after encoding. In the standard Nelson and Dunlosky (1991) paradigm, participants study word pairs and, after each pair (immediate) or after a delay (delayed), rate the likelihood (0-100%) that they will recall the target when given the cue on a later test. A cued recall test follows, and prediction accuracy is assessed through resolution (gamma correlation between judgments and recall) and calibration (mean judgment vs. mean recall). A landmark finding is the delayed-judgment-of-learning effect: predictions made after a brief delay are far more accurate than immediate ones, because delayed judgments rely on retrieval fluency (a valid cue) rather than short-term memory availability (a poor cue). Judgment-of-Learning research connects to self-regulated learning: learners use these judgments to allocate study time, select items for restudy, and decide when to terminate study. The paradigm is foundational in metamemory research and dissociates from Feeling-of-Knowing tasks in timing (post-encoding vs. post-retrieval-failure), prediction target (recall vs. recognition), and underlying basis (encoding fluency vs. partial retrieval).
Inclusion test¶
An experiment is an instance of this task when its procedure matches, it manipulates at least one of the listed variables, and it records at least one of the listed measures.
Procedure |
Participants study items (typically word pairs), then predict the likelihood of recalling each item on a future test; a subsequent recall test assesses prediction accuracy. |
Manipulation |
Judgment timing (immediate vs. delayed); item difficulty (related vs. unrelated pairs); encoding conditions (number of presentations, elaborative vs. rote); cue type (cue-only vs. cue-target at judgment); self-paced vs. fixed study time; reactivity (whether making judgments alters learning). |
Measurement |
Resolution (gamma correlation between judgments and recall); calibration (mean judgment - mean recall); over/underconfidence (signed calibration); absolute accuracy; judgment latency; study-time allocation as a behavioral consequence of judgments. |
Variations¶
Named versions that change what the participant experiences or does. The identifier
of a variation is hedvar_<task>__<variation>.
Variation |
Description |
Justification |
|---|---|---|
Immediate Judgment-of-Learning
|
Judgment made immediately after studying each item. Tends to be poorly calibrated because it relies on short-term memory availability rather than long-term retrievability. |
JOL made immediately after study; foresight-based monitoring |
Delayed Judgment-of-Learning
|
Judgment made after a filled delay (e.g., several intervening items). Nelson and Dunlosky (1991) showed dramatic accuracy improvement. The cue-only delayed condition shows near-perfect resolution. |
JOL made after delay; improves accuracy via delayed-JOL effect |
Aggregate vs. Item-by-Item Judgments
|
Global judgment for the entire list vs. item-level predictions. Aggregate judgments test calibration at the list level. |
Global confidence vs. per-item monitoring; different judgment granularity |
Cue-Only vs. Cue-Target Delayed Judgment
|
At delayed judgment, present just the cue (forces retrieval attempt) or cue + target (allows re-encoding assessment). Cue-only delayed judgments are the most accurate. |
JOL prompted by cue alone vs. cue+target; tests forward vs. backward recall fluency |
Self-Regulated Study Paradigm
|
Participants make judgments and then choose which items to restudy. Tests whether judgments drive adaptive study-time allocation (discrepancy reduction model). |
Participant allocates study time based on JOL; adds metacognitive control component |
Pre-Study Judgment (Ease-of-Learning)
|
Judgment made before studying (based on item preview). An ease-of-learning judgment rather than a true judgment of learning; tests a priori difficulty estimation. |
Judgment made before study; different pre-learning prediction task |
Cognitive processes¶
This task is designed to engage the following processes:
Key references¶
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The ‘delayed-JOL effect’. Psychological Science, 2(4), 267-270. (DOI)
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349-370. (DOI)
Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20(4), 374-380. (DOI, PubMed)
Further references¶
Rhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 131-148. (DOI, PubMed)
Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2015). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluency. Memory & Cognition, 43(3), 480-493. (DOI)
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176-199. (DOI, PubMed)
Double, K. S., Birney, D. P., & Walker, S. A. (2018). A meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgments of learning. Memory, 26(6), 741-750. (DOI)