Why Does Excellent Monitoring Accuracy Not Always Produce Gains in Memory Performance?

• Published in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2021-04, Vol.229 (2), p.104-119
• Main Authors: Dunlosky, John, Mueller, Michael L., Morehead, Kayla, Tauber, Sarah K., Thiede, Keith W., Metcalfe, Janet
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Human; Judgment; Learning; Memory; Metacognition; Self-Regulated Learning; Self-Regulation
• ISSN: 2190-8370; 2151-2604
• DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000441

Does excellent monitoring of learning support improvements in subsequent relearning? Although some studies answer this question affirmatively, others have suggested that excellent monitoring may not matter. Accordingly, we address the question, when will highly accurate monitoring judgments benefit restudy? According to the contingent-efficacy hypothesis, excellent monitoring accuracy will not benefit learning (a) when restudy itself produces only small learning gains for items that were restudied, (b) when few (or most) of the items have been learned prior to restudy, and (c) when learners use their accurate judgments inappropriately for making restudy selections. Under these circumstances, the contingent-efficacy hypothesis predicts that restudy will be suboptimal, whereas under more ideal conditions (e.g., learning gains are high during restudy), excellent monitoring is expected to enhance restudy efficacy. By confirming these predictions across three experiments, the current research reconciles the prior discrepancies and reveals when excellent monitoring will matter for effectively guiding restudy.