Enactment impairs resolution of JOLs relative to verbal encoding of action phrases¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Enactive encoding significantly hampered JOL resolution compared with verbal encoding. → Kubik 2022

Evidence¶

Kubik 2022¶

Kubik, V., Jemstedt, A., Mahjub Eshratabadi, H., Schwartz, B. L., & Jönsson, F. U. (2022). The underconfidence-with-practice effect in action memory: The contribution of retrieval practice to metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09288-2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the same lab experiment, mean resolution gamma for study–test items was lower after enactive than verbal encoding: "enactment (M = 0.46, SE = 0.06) significantly hampered the resolution of JOLs compared to verbal encoding (M = 0.65, SE = 0.06)".

"enactment (M = 0.46, SE = 0.06) significantly hampered the resolution of JOLs compared to verbal encoding (M = 0.65, SE = 0.06), F(1, 47) = 4.68, p = 0.036, ω2 = 0.037"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Resolution of JOLs increases across study–test cycles, improving between Cycles 1 and 2 but not from Cycle 2 to Cycle 3 — related
• Learners' JOLs are sensitive to the enactment benefit even when encoding type is manipulated between subjects — related
• Past-test correlations exceed concurrent resolution scores, and JOLs rise for previously recalled items while falling for nonrecalled items — related
• Enactive encoding yields higher cued recall than verbal encoding, and the enactment effect remains stable across learning cycles — related
• Calibration of JOLs shifts toward underconfidence across learning cycles for action phrases under both verbal and enactive encoding, without first-cycle overconfidence — related