Learners' JOLs are sensitive to the enactment benefit even when encoding type is manipulated between subjects¶

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? Participants gave higher JOLs after enactive than verbal encoding, and predicted action phrases to profit more from enactment with practice. → 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 JOL-magnitude analysis of the experiment, "learners gave higher JOLs after enactive encoding than verbal encoding", with a significant Encoding Type × Cycle interaction showing participants expected enactment gains to grow with practice.

"learners gave higher JOLs after enactive encoding than verbal encoding, F(1, 57) = 13.08, p < 0.001, ω 2 = 0.094. Participants predicted action phrases to profit more from enactment with practice, as demonstrated by a significant Encoding Type × Cycle interaction"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Enactment impairs resolution of JOLs relative to verbal encoding of action phrases — 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