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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 High-retrieval-probability interim tasks produced higher Phase B memory and transfer accuracy than low-retrieval-probability tasks in a preregistered four-condition experiment. → Ritter 2025 q3 i? Omnibus tests showed posttest accuracy depended on whether the task afforded retrieval (target-absent vs. target-present), not on whether JOLs were made. → Ritter 2025 (2)

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

Preregistered between-subjects experiment (N = 158 university students) with GLMM planned contrasts on Phase B posttest accuracy. The preregistered high- vs. low-retrieval contrast was significant for memory ("OR = 1.76, p = .014") and transfer ("OR = 1.78, p = .005").

"High-retrieval groups showed higher memory accuracy (M = .65, SD = .25) than low-retrieval groups (M = .55, SD = .28, OR = 1.76, p = .014), and higher transfer accuracy (M = .61, SD = .24) than low-retrieval groups (M = .51, SD = .26, OR = 1.78, p = .005)."

Ritter 2025 (2)¶

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 · i? · causal · r3

Exploratory omnibus Wald χ2 tests in the same GLMMs found a significant target-condition main effect on memory and transfer, while the JOL main effect and the Target × JOL interaction were nonsignificant. Only test statistics are printed, so no effect size is reported.

"Omnibus Wald χ2 tests from the GLMMs indicated a significant main effect of target condition (target-absent vs. target-present) on both memory, χ 2(1) = 4.86, p = .027, and transfer, χ2(1) = 6.64, p = .010."

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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Cue-only JOLs performed similarly to overt retrieval, and cue–target JOLs similarly to restudy, on Phase B memory and transfer (Experiment 1) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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