16:30 - 18:00
Parallel sessions 3
16:30 - 18:00
Room: HSZ - N4
Chair/s:
Luisa Schulz, Franziska Ingendahl
Research on metacognition investigates how people understand and regulate their own cognitive processes. This symposium addresses how metacognitive monitoring judgments are formed and how they influence effective learning. The first two talks focus on the underlying basis and accuracy of metacognitive judgments: Schulz, Bröder, and Undorf show that people integrate multiple cues when making metacognitive control decisions. Leipold and Berthold find that Judgments of Remembering and Knowing (JORKs) differ from traditional Judgments of Learning (JOLs) in memory processes, although the previously reported accuracy advantage of JORKs was not replicated. In the third talk, Schaper and Ingendahl present evidence on how metacognitive judgments shape item and source memory. The last two talks provide insights into more applied aspects of metacognition: Zawadzka and Hanczakowski show how feedback motivates learners to solve general knowledge facts themselves. Finally, Undorf, Ingendahl, Janson, Wissel, and Münzer demonstrate that JOLs predict learning behavior and success in a higher education learning setting. Together, the talks provide new insights into the mechanisms and consequences of metacognitive monitoring for learning and memory.
Submission 119
Judgments of Remembering and Knowing (JORKs): Quo Vadis?
SymposiumTalk-02
Presented by: Franziska M. Leipold
Franziska M. Leipold 1, Lisa-Marie Berthold 2
1 University of Mannheim, Germany
2 University of Heidelberg, Germany
Metamemory monitoring is critical for effective control decisions, such as allocating study time. Recent research suggests that making Judgments of Remembering and Knowing (JORKs) instead of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) may enhance monitoring accuracy. While JOLs are confidence ratings of future memory performance typically provided on a percentage scale, JORKs distinguish between recollection (“remember”), familiarity (“know”), and absence of memory (“forget”) on a three-point scale. Prior findings indicate that JORKs yield higher relative accuracy than immediate JOLs and are less influenced by illusionary cues, presumably because they direct attention toward more diagnostic information. The present study aimed to replicate this reported JORK benefit and examine its proposed underlying mechanisms. We found that JORKs mapped differently onto familiarity and recollection processes than JOLs, consistent with theoretical predictions. However, this processing distinction did not translate into higher monitoring accuracy for JORKs. These findings challenge the robustness of the previously reported JORK advantage and indicate that JORKs may not provide a reliable means to enhance metamemory accuracy in research or applied contexts.