The Influence of Judgments of Learning on Long-Term Learning and Short-Term Performance

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively alter memory itself, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study recorded electroencephalography (EEG) signals during the encoding phase of a word list learning task to explore the neurocognitive features associated with JOL reactivity. The behavioral results show that making JOLs reactively enhances recognition performance. The EEG results reveal that, compared with not making JOLs, making JOLs increases P200 and LPC amplitudes and decreases alpha and beta power. Additionally, the signals of event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related desynchronizations (ERDs) partially mediate the reactivity effect. These findings support the enhanced learning engagement theory and the elaborative processing explanation to account for the JOL reactivity effect.

Judgments of Learning Reactivity on Item-Specific and Relational Processing

Judgments of learning (JOLs) reactivity refers to the finding that the mere solicitation of JOLs modifies subsequent memory performance. One theoretical explanation is the item-specific processing hypothesis, which posits that item-level JOLs redound to the benefit of later memory performance because they enhance item-specific processing. The current study was designed to test this account. We factorially manipulated the organization (blocked vs. randomized) of categorized lists and JOL condition (item-JOLs, list-JOLs, no-JOLs) between participants, and fit the dual-retrieval model to free recall data to pinpoint the underlying memory processes that were affected by JOL solicitation. Our results showed that item-level JOLs produced positive reactivity for randomized but not for blocked categorized lists. Moreover, we found that the positive JOL reactivity for randomized categorized lists was tied to a familiarity judgment process that is associated with gist processing, rather than to item-specific recollective processes. Thus, our results pose a challenge to the item-specific processing explanation of JOL reactivity. We argue that JOL reactivity is not restricted to item-specific processing; instead, whether JOLs predominantly engage participants with item-specific or relational processing depends on the interaction between learning stimuli and JOLs.

Do Judgments of Learning Impair Recall When Uninformative Cues Are Salient?

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue-font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall.

Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem - Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja - Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Judgments of Learning Following Retrieval Practice Produce Minimal Reactivity Effect on Learning of Education-Related Materials

Testing (i.e., retrieval practice) is one of the most powerful strategies to boost learning. A recent study observed an incidental finding that making judgments of learning (JOLs) following retrieval practice further enhanced learning of education-related texts to a medium extent (Cohen's d = 0.44) by comparison with retrieval practice itself, suggesting that making JOLs may serve as an easy-to-implement educational intervention to improve the benefits of testing. Three experiments (one pre-registered) were conducted to test the replicability of Ariel et al.'s incidental finding and to further determine whether making JOLs following retrieval practice reactively enhances the benefits of testing for text learning. The three experiments consistently provided Bayesian evidence supporting no reactivity effect of JOLs following retrieval practice, regardless of whether the replication experiments were conducted in a laboratory (Experiment 1) or online (Experiments 2 and 3), whether the stimuli were presented in the same language (Experiments 2 and 3) or not (Experiment 1), and whether participants were recruited from the sample pool (Experiment 2) or not (Experiments 1 and 3) as in the original study. These null findings imply that making JOLs cannot be utilized as a practical strategy to enhance the benefits of testing for learning of educationally related materials. Possible explanations for the null reactivity effect of JOLs following retrieval practice are discussed.

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy-cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.

Does the reactivity effect of judgments of learning transfer to learning of new information?

ABSTRACTMaking judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively change memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study was designed to explore whether the reactivity effect transfers to subsequent learning of new information. Participants studied two blocks of words (Experiment 1) or related word pairs (Experiments 2 & 3). In Block 1, participants in the experimental (JOL) group made a JOL while studying each item, whereas the control (no-JOL) group did not make item-by-item JOLs. Then both groups studied Block 2, in which they did not make JOLs, and finally, they took a test on Blocks 1 and 2. Across Experiments 1 -3, the results showed superior Block 1 test performance in the JOL than in the no-JOL group, demonstrating a positive reactivity effect. Critically, there was minimal difference in Block 2 test performance between the two groups, implying little transfer of the positive reactivity effect to subsequent learning of new information. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that the reactivity effect still failed to transfer even when participants explicitly appreciated the benefits of making JOLs. Educational implications are discussed.

Delayed Metacomprehension Judgments Do Not Directly Improve Learning from Texts

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) after studying can directly improve learning. This JOL reactivity has been shown for simple materials but has scarcely been investigated with educationally relevant materials such as expository texts. The few existing studies have not yet reported any consistent gains in text comprehension due to providing JOLs. In the present study, we hypothesized that increasing the chances of covert retrieval attempts when making JOLs after each of five to-be-studied text passages would produce comprehension benefits at 1 week compared to restudy. In a between-subjects design, we manipulated both whether participants (N = 210) were instructed to covertly retrieve the texts, and whether they made delayed target-absent JOLs. The results indicated that delayed, target-absent JOLs did not improve text comprehension after 1 week, regardless of whether prior instructions to engage in covert retrieval were provided. Based on the two-stage model of JOLs, we reasoned that participants' retrieval attempts during metacomprehension judgments were either insufficient (i.e., due to a quick familiarity assessment) or were ineffective (e.g., due to low retrieval success).

Does Interactive Imagery Influence the Reactive Effect of Judgments of Learning on Memory?

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying is a useful tool for students to evaluate the status of their learning. Additionally, in associative learning contexts, JOLs can directly benefit learning when the to-be-learned information is related. One explanation for this reactive effect is that making JOLs strengthens the associative relationship, leading to enhanced memory performance when a test relies on that relationship (e.g., cued-recall tests). In the present research, we evaluated whether having students make interactive mental images-another strategy that can increase the strength of a cue-target relationship-impacts the reactive effect of JOLs on learning. Students studied word pairs that were related and unrelated. Half of the students were instructed to form a mental image of the words interacting, whereas the other half were not. Additionally, in each group half of the students made a JOL for each pair, whereas half did not. Following a short delay, students completed a cued-recall test. Consistent with prior research, students who made JOLs remembered more related word pairs than did students who did not. By contrast, students who made JOLs recalled fewer unrelated word pairs than did students who did not. Moreover, although students who formed interactive images demonstrated enhanced memory relative to students who did not, interactive imagery did not impact the reactive effect of JOLs. These outcomes are informative for existing theory of JOL reactivity. Specifically, JOLs may only benefit learning of associative information when it has a pre-existing semantic relationship (e.g., related word pairs) and not when that that relationship is created by the learner (e.g., by forming interactive images).

The Forward Effect of Delayed Judgments of Learning Is Influenced by Difficulty in Memory and Category Learning

Delayed judgment of learning (JOL) is a widely used metacognitive monitoring strategy that can also enhance learning outcomes. However, the potential benefits of delayed JOL on subsequent learning of new material, known as the forward effect of delayed JOL, and its stability and underlying mechanisms have yet to be fully explored. In this study, we investigated the forward effect of delayed JOL using previously unexamined word pair materials and explored the boundary conditions of this effect by manipulating the difficulty of the materials. We also examined this effect within the context of category learning. Our findings demonstrate that delayed JOL significantly enhanced the retention of new information (Experiment 1A), while the forward effect of the delayed JOL occurred only for material with a certain degree of difficulty rather than for easy material (Experiment 1B). These findings were extended and replicated using category learning (Experiment 2). These results suggest that delayed JOL can be used as a preparation strategy for subsequent learning, particularly when faced with challenging materials. Our study provides novel insights into the potential benefits and limitations of delayed JOL and contributes to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that govern metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies.

Instructional Strategies to Enhance Dermoscopic Image Interpretation Education: a Review of the Literature

Introduction

In image interpretation education, many educators have shifted away from traditional methods that involve passive instruction and fragmented learning to interactive ones that promote active engagement and integrated knowledge. By training pattern recognition skills in an effective manner, these interactive approaches provide a promising direction for dermoscopy education.

Objectives

A narrative review of the literature was performed to probe emerging directions in medical image interpretation education that may support dermoscopy education. This article represents the second of a two-part review series.

Methods

To promote innovation in dermoscopy education, the International Skin Imaging Collaborative (ISIC) assembled an Education Working Group that comprises international dermoscopy experts and educational scientists. Based on a preliminary literature review and their experiences as educators, the group developed and refined a list of innovative approaches through multiple rounds of discussion and feedback. For each approach, literature searches were performed for relevant articles.

Results

Through a consensus-based approach, the group identified a number of theory-based approaches, as discussed in the first part of this series. The group also acknowledged the role of motivation, metacognition, and early failures in optimizing the learning process. Other promising teaching tools included gamification, social media, and perceptual and adaptive learning modules (PALMs).

Conclusions

Over the years, many dermoscopy educators may have intuitively adopted these instructional strategies in response to learner feedback, personal observations, and changes in the learning environment. For dermoscopy training, PALMs may be especially valuable in that they provide immediate feedback and adapt the training schedule to the individual's performance.

Judgments of learning reactively facilitate visual memory by enhancing learning engagement

Recent studies have found that making judgments of learning (JOLs) for verbal materials changes memory itself, a form of reactivity effect on memory. The current study explores the reactivity effect on visual (image) memory and tests the potential role of enhanced learning engagement in this effect. Experiment 1 employed object image pairs as stimuli and observed a positive reactivity effect on memory for visual details. Experiment 2 conceptually replicated this positive reactivity effect using pairs of scene images. Experiment 3 introduced mind wandering (MW) probes to measure participants' attentional state (learning engagement) and observed that making JOLs significantly reduced MW. More importantly, reduced MW mediated the reactivity effect. Lastly, Experiment 4 found that a manipulation that heightened learning motivation decreased the reactivity effect. Overall, the current study provides the first demonstration of the reactivity effect on visual memory, as well as support for the enhanced learning engagement explanation. Practical implications are discussed.

Reactivity from judgments of learning is not only due to memory forecasting: evidence from associative memory and frequency judgments

Research has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) often produce a reactive effect on the learning of cue-target pairs in which target recall differs between participants who provide item-based JOLs at study versus those who do not. Positive reactivity, or the memory improvement found when JOLs are provided, is typically observed on related pairs, while no reactivity is commonly found on unrelated pairs. In four experiments, we examined JOL reactivity effects by comparing JOL and no-JOL groups to other groups who engaged in relational-type encoding/judgment tasks. Experiment 1 replicated positive JOL reactivity effects with related pairs with an extension to symmetrically related pairs. Next, Experiment 2 found that providing judgments of associative memory-a task that does not involve memory predictions-yielded equivalent reactivity patterns as JOLs. Experiment 3 replicated this reactivity pattern using a frequency of co-occurrence judgment task. Finally, In Experiment 4, a similar positive reactivity pattern was found using a relational encoding task when compared to a standard JOL. Collectively, our results suggest that previous JOL reactivity patterns are not solely due to memory forecasting processes via JOLs and likely reflect relational encoding that is strategically applied towards related, but not unrelated pairs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-022-09301-2.

Evidence of the Spacing Effect and Influences on Perceptions of Learning and Science Curricula

The conventional science curricula generally favour educational practices that yield high scores on immediate examination, though it may not accurately predict students’ long-term academic achievement. In view of the pre-exam cramming phenomenon, this article shows the evidence of spacing effect in science education and probes into its theoretical mechanisms, effectiveness in experimental settings, and current applications in science learning. In brief, spacing works by repeatedly presenting the learning material across various temporal intervals. This paper suggests that spacing could significantly result in greater memory strength by alleviating multiple neurocognitive and behavioural properties of learning that are hampered by cramming. Together with the analysis of its relevance in science education, the spacing effect may further provide leverages for promoting long-term conceptual understanding and reflective skill development. However, there are many reasons that students and teachers may not be aware of or fully appreciate its benefits. Finally, this article discusses systemic barriers to why spaced repetition is underutilized in science curricula.

When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children's learning

Recent studies established that making concurrent judgments of learning (JOLs) can significantly alter (typically enhance) memory itself-a reactivity effect. The current study recruited 190 Chinese children (M_age  = 8.68 years; 101 female) in 2020 and 2021 to explore the reactivity effect on children's learning, its developmental trajectory and associated metacognitive awareness. The results showed that making JOLs significantly enhanced retention for students in Grades 1, 3, and 5, with Cohen's ds ranging from 0.40 to 1.33. Grade 5 students exhibited a larger reactivity effect than Grade 1 and 3 students. Children's metacognitive appreciation of the effect was weak. Firsthand experience of the reactivity effect, induced by taking a memory test, enhanced their awareness and calibrated their judgment accuracy.

Investigating memory reactivity with a within-participant manipulation of judgments of learning: support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis

When learners make judgments of learning (JOLs) for some word pairs but not others, how and why is recall performance affected? Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for a randomly selected half of the pairs. We evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in pair difficulty and to change their learning goal. Because JOLs are manipulated within participants, such a goal change should influence how all (judged or non-judged) pairs are processed on the list, which should lead to no JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity (i.e., higher recall for judged versus non-judged pairs) for related than unrelated pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the two words in a pair, which would be more beneficial for pairs with an a priori relationship. Across experiments, we found positive reactivity for both related and unrelated pairs (albeit to a lesser degree for the latter). We also found no evidence that learners make qualitative changes in their reported strategy use when judging pairs. Making JOLs for some pairs on a list influenced memory performance and the pattern of reactivity provided support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

The effect of delayed judgments of learning on retention

Evidence is mixed concerning whether delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) enhance learning and if so, whether their benefit is similar to retrieval practice. One potential explanation for the mixed findings is the truncated search hypothesis, which states that not all delayed JOLs lead to a full-blown covert retrieval attempt. In three paired-associate learning experiments, we examined the effect of delayed JOLs on later recall by comparing them to conditions of restudy, overt retrieval, and various other delayed JOL conditions. In Experiment 1, after an initial study phase, subjects either restudied word pairs, practiced overt retrieval, or made cue-only or cue-target delayed JOLs. In Experiments 2a and 2b, where conditions were manipulated within-subjects, subjects either restudied word pairs, practiced overt retrieval, made cue-only delayed JOLs, made cue-only delayed JOLs followed by a yes/no retrieval question or, in another condition, by an overt retrieval prompt. The final cued recall tests were delayed by two days. In Experiment 1, recall after cue-only delayed JOLs did not reliably differ from recall after overt retrieval or restudy. In Experiments 2a and 2b, delayed JOLs consistently produced poorer recall relative to overt retrieval. Furthermore, reaction times for delayed JOLs were shorter relative to delayed JOLs paired with overt retrieval prompts. We conclude that only some delayed JOLs elicit covert retrieval attempts, a pattern supporting the truncated search hypothesis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-021-09260-0.

Making judgments of learning enhances memory by inducing item-specific processing

A judgment of leaning (JOL) has been investigated to understand self-regulated learning. However, asking participants to make JOLs may increase memory by creating a reactivity effect. In two experiments, we examined whether making JOLs would enhance memory by inducing item-specific processing. We compared a JOL task with two other tasks that are known to induce item-specific processing: pleasantness rating (Experiment 1) and single imagery (Experiment 2; creating vivid mental images). Participants learned a categorized or uncategorized list of words. Memory should be enhanced when the list promotes relational processing and the task induces item-specific processing. As expected, when the list was categorized, recall was higher in the JOL and item-specific processing conditions (pleasantness rating and single imagery) than in the control condition. Furthermore, recall was similar between the JOL and item-specific processing conditions. When the list was uncategorized, there was no difference in recall among the JOL, item-specific processing, and control conditions. Making JOLs enhances memory by inducing item-specific processing. We concluded that researchers need to carefully consider how making a JOL influences memory when investigating self-regulated study behaviors.

Reactivity of Judgments of Learning in a Levels-of-Processing Paradigm

Abstract. Recent studies have shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) are reactive measures in paired-associate learning paradigms. However, evidence is scarce concerning whether JOLs are reactive in other paradigms. In old/new recognition experiments, we investigated the reactivity effects of JOLs in a levels-of-processing (LOP) paradigm. In Experiments 1 and 2, for each word, subjects saw a yes/no orienting question followed by the target word and a response. Then, they either did or did not make a JOL. The yes/no questions were about target words’ appearances, rhyming properties, or category memberships. In Experiment 3, for each word, subjects gave a pleasantness rating or counted the letter “e ”. Our results revealed that JOLs enhanced recognition across all orienting tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, and for the e-counting task in Experiment 3. This reactive effect was salient for shallow tasks, attenuating – but not eliminating – the LOP effect after making JOLs. We conclude that JOLs are reactive in LOP paradigms and subjects encode words more effectively when providing JOLs.

Reactivity to Measures of Metacognition

Metacognition is typically measured by collecting self-reported information from participants while they complete a cognitive task. Recent evidence suggests that eliciting such metacognitive information from participants can impact both their metacognitive processes and their cognitive performance. Although there are contradictory findings regarding the magnitude and even the direction of this effect, recent evidence has converged to provide a clearer picture of the mechanisms that determine reactivity. Here, we provide a review of the evidence that measures of metacognition, namely think-aloud protocols, judgments of learning, and confidence ratings, are reactive. We argue that reactivity has important implications not just for the measurement of metacognition, but for metacognition theorizing because reactivity can provide insights into the cues participants use to monitor their performance. Drawing from this synthesis of evidence, we propose a tentative framework for studying reactivity that integrates cue processing accounts of reactivity with existing models of metacognition. We conclude the review by addressing some of the pertinent questions yet to be comprehensively addressed by reactivity research, including how researchers should best address issues of reactivity when using experimental designs.

Do confidence ratings prime confidence?

Confidence ratings (CR) are one of the most frequently used measures in psychological research. However, recent evidence has suggested that eliciting CR from participants may result in changes to cognitive performance, so called reactivity. Here, we examine whether reactivity to CR can be better explained by added task-relevant introspection, or, alternatively, the unintentional priming of confidence-related beliefs. First, we compare participants' performance in a group making CR with a group making a task-irrelevant control rating, and a second group who made the same task-irrelevant rating, but with the word 'confident' included in the rating's wording. The results suggest that reactivity is driven by the presentation of the word 'confident', and reactivity does not require task-relevant introspection. Additionally, we show that rephrasing CR to remove the word 'confident' neutralises reactivity. This suggests that reactivity may represent a significant problem for researchers using CR, but rephrasing CR may remedy these concerns in relatively simple fashion.

Metamemory viewed through the judgment lens

Metamemory research makes extensive use of judgments, such as judgments of learning (JOLs). In a JOL, people predict their chance of remembering a recently studied item in a memory test. There is a general agreement that JOLs rely on probabilistic cues that are combined in an inference process. Accuracy as measured by the gamma correlation between JOLs and actual performance is usually mediocre, suggesting limited metacognitive abilities. In judgment and decision-making research, Brunswik's lens model is often used to decompose judgmental accuracy: A matching index G measures how adequately people's cue weights match the optimal weights, two reliability indices assess the predictability of judgments and environment, respectively, and a nonlinear component measures systematic variance not captured by the cues. We employed the lens model equation for the first time to analyze four published and one new JOL data sets. There was considerable interindividual variance in metamemory monitoring. Although gamma was on average higher than the Pearson correlation, it still underestimated metacognitive ability in terms of matching (G). Also, the nonlinear component was considerably higher than in other judgment domains, pointing to substantial item-person-interactions that we interpret as idiosyncratic encoding strategies. An exploratory cluster analysis suggests different metacognitive strategies used by subgroups of participants. We suggest the lens model as a potentially promising tool in metacognition research.

The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance: Positive, negative, or both?

A common measure of memory monitoring--judgments of learning (JOLs)--has recently been shown to have reactive effects on learning. When participants study a list of related and unrelated word pairs, they recall more related than unrelated pairs. This relatedness effect is larger when people make JOLs than when they do not make them. Evidence is mixed concerning whether this increased relatedness effect arises because JOLs help memory for related pairs, hurt it for unrelated pairs, or do both. In three experiments, we investigated (1) the nature of the increased relatedness effect (i.e., does it arise from positive reactivity for related pairs, negative reactivity for unrelated pairs, or both?) and (2) the mechanisms underlying the effect. Participants studied cue-target word pairs and either did (or did not) make immediate JOLs and then completed a cued-recall test. When participants studied a mixed list consisting of related and unrelated pairs, the increased relatedness effect was largely driven by positive reactivity. When participants studied pure lists consisting solely of related or unrelated word pairs (Experiment 2 only), the increased relatedness effect was minimized. These and other findings suggest that making JOLs helps learning more than hurts it, and that this reactive effect partly occurs because making JOLs changes people's learning goals.

Can very small font size enhance memory?

Presenting information in a perceptually degraded format sometimes enhances learning outcomes. However, earlier studies in which words were presented in large or small fonts in a paradigm that also involved item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs) consistently yielded no mnemonic benefit of small fonts. Can small font size enhance memory under hitherto unexamined conditions? A series of 11 experiments was conducted to examine systematically the effect of font size on memory for words and whether it depends on the strength of the font size manipulation, whether JOLs are solicited, the format of the test, and study time. The resulting data were meta-analyzed. Results yielded a u-shape relationship between font size and memory. Compared to intermediate fonts, there was a memory advantage for words presented in large fonts but also for words presented in very small fonts. However, the requirement to provide a JOL moderated the benefit of the very small font, which was eliminated when JOLs were solicited. Test format and study time did not moderate the effect of font size on memory. JOLs were insensitive to the u-shape relationship and consistently increased with font size. These findings provide support for the notion that perceptually degraded materials can enhance learning outcomes, but also highlight the importance of systematic investigation of moderators. The results shed new light on the inconsistent effects of manipulations of perceptual degradation on learning outcomes observed in earlier studies.