In Experiment 1, cue-only JOLs produced significantly better Phase B memory and transfer than restudy, while overt retrieval's memory advantage over restudy was only marginal¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Cue-only JOLs yielded significantly higher memory (OR = 1.93) and transfer (OR = 1.83) than restudy; overt retrieval vs. restudy was significant for transfer but not memory. → Ritter 2025

Evidence¶

Ritter 2025¶

Ritter, C., Hausman, H., Gaschler, R., Tiffin-Richards, S. P., & Kubik, V. (2025). The Forward Effect of Judgements of Learning on Memory and Transfer in Inductive Learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10094-4

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

One-sided pairwise comparisons with restudy in Experiment 1's GLMMs, reported as corollaries of the preregistered contrasts. Cue-only JOLs beat restudy on both tests; overt retrieval beat restudy on transfer only, with the memory contrast marginal (p = .054).

"For memory, overt retrieval was numerically but not statistically higher than restudy ( OR = 1.79, p = .054), whereas cue‐only JOLs showed a significant advantage (OR = 1.93, p = .034). Similarly, both overt retrieval (OR = 1.87, p = .023) and cue‐only JOLs ( OR = 1.83, p = .027) produced significantly greater transfer accuracy than restudy."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Experiment 2 replicated the forward effect of cue-only JOLs over restudy with rock categories, and item-by-item feedback did not change the effect — related
• Cue-only JOLs, but not cue–target JOLs, showed the inverted U-shaped JOL–response-time relationship taken as a behavioral signature of covert retrieval (Experiment 1) — related
• Cue-only JOLs performed similarly to overt retrieval, and cue–target JOLs similarly to restudy, on Phase B memory and transfer (Experiment 1) — related
• In Experiment 1, interim tasks with high retrieval probability (overt retrieval, cue-only JOLs) enhanced new inductive learning more than low-retrieval tasks (cue–target JOLs, restudy) on both memory and transfer — a broader claim this one bears on
• In Experiment 1, the interim learning task did not affect Phase A posttest performance, indicating the forward benefit was not due to improved prior learning — related
• Self-reported retrieval use moderated the forward benefit of cue-only JOLs: higher retrieval ratings predicted better Phase B memory and transfer only in the cue-only JOLs condition — related
• Both overt and covert retrieval practice outperform restudy when practice and test match (the testing effect) — related