Metacognitive beliefs about font fluency in a word memorization task
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15503/onis2024.183.192Keywords:
fluency, judgments of learning, font, metacognitive illusion, metacognition, memoryAbstract
Aim. Past research points to an effect of fluency on metacognitive judgments of learning (JOLs). The current study aims to re-examine the effect of font fluency manipulation on judgments of learning.
Method. Participants (N = 41) were presented sets of words in a sans-serif font and a script font, and tasked to mark words perceived as difficult, being told the marked words could be later restudied. After a filler task, there was no restudy session, participants instead took a recall test. Data was collected on the amount of words marked for restudy in either condition, the amount of words recalled from either condition, and words both marked for restudy and later successfully recalled from either condition.
Results and discussion. Participants marked script font words for restudy more frequently than sans-serif font words, while no differences in recall were found. Thus, a metacognitive illusion was shown. Study results cohere with past research in the field.
Cognitive value. Beyond a replication of a classic experimental design, the article reviews the subject of metacognition and experiments involving JOLs. A need is stated for new study designs that address mentioned issues and some best practices are suggested.
Downloads
References
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012
Ferrigno, S., Kornell, N., & Cantlon, J. F. (2017). A metacognitive illusion in monkeys. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 284(1862). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1541
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
Geller, J., Davis, S. D., & Peterson, D. J. (2020). Sans Forgetica is not desirable for learning. Memory, 28(8), 957–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1797096
Hertzog, C., Dunlosky, J., Robinson, A. E., & Kidder, D. P. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.22
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of Competence in Monitoring One’s Knowledge During Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1133
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Brown University Press.
Maxwell, N. P., Perry, T., & Huff, M. J. (2022). Perceptually fluent features of study words do not inflate judgements of learning: Evidence from font size, highlights, and Sans Forgetica font type. Metacognition and Learning, 17(2), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09284-6
Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive Theories Revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 599–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9413-7
Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007
Murphy, D. H., Huckins, S. C., Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2022). The effect of perceptual processing fluency and value on metacognition and remembering. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(3), 910–921. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02030-8
Nelson, T. O. (1990). Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014
Rhodes, M. G. (2019). Metacognition. Teaching of Psychology, 46(2), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319834381
Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 550–554. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.550
Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2015). If it’s hard to read, it changes how long you do it: Reading time as an explanation for perceptual fluency effects on judgment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 206–211. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0658-6
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
Soderstrom, N. C., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). Metacognitive illusions can be reduced by monitoring recollection during study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.834906
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x
Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 973–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9
Taylor, A., Sanson, M., Burnell, R., Wade, K. A., & Garry, M. (2020). Disfluent difficulties are not desirable difficulties: The (lack of) effect of Sans Forgetica on memory. Memory, 28(7), 850–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1758726
Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 918–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000177
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Lea Słomska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
