English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

College students' ability to judge whether a studied item had been learned well enough to be recalled on a later test was examined in three experiments with self-paced learning procedures. Generally, these learners compensated for item difficulty when allocating study time, studying hard items longer than easy items, but they still recalled more easy items than hard items and tended to drop items out too soon. When provided with test opportunities during study or a delay between study and judgment, learners compensated significantly more for item difficulty and recalled substantially more. Paradoxically, good and poor learners compensated similarly for item difficulty and benefited similarly from testing during study and from delayed decision making. Thus, although the ability to make metamemory decisions was shown to be important for effective learning, these decisions were made equally well by good and poor associative learners. An analysis of tasks used to investigate metamemory-memory relationships in adult learning may provide an account for this apparent learning ability paradox.

The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners?