When learning new information, students' prior knowledge related to that information will often vary. Prior research has not systematically explored how prior knowledge relates to learning of new, previously unknown information. Accordingly, the goal of the present research was to explore this relationship. In three experiments, students first completed a prior knowledge test over two domains (football and cooking) and then learned new information from these domains by answering questions and receiving feedback. Students also made a judgment of learning for each. To ensure that the learning was new (i.e., previously unknown) for all students, the to-be-learned information was false. Last, students completed a final test over the same questions from the learning phase. Prior knowledge in each domain was positively related to new learning for items from that domain but not from the other domain. Thus, the relationship between prior knowledge and new learning was domain specific, which we refer to as the rich-get-richer effect. Prior knowledge was also positively related to the magnitude of judgments of learning. In Experiment 3, to explore a potential reason why prior knowledge is related to new learning, students rated their curiosity in learning each item prior to receiving feedback. Critically, students' curiosity judgments mediated the relationship between prior knowledge and new learning. These outcomes suggest that for high-knowledge learners, curiosity may be related to attention-based mechanisms that increase the effectiveness of encoding during feedback. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Students must retain information they learn in class over the long term because it may be foundational for upper-level classes or for use in their field. Recently, researchers have demonstrated that making judgments of learning (JOLs) can enhance students’ short-term performance; however, it is unclear how they influence long-term learning. We evaluated this issue in three experiments. Participants studied related word pairs (e.g., castle–king). Half of the participants made a JOL for each pair and half did not. Participants took a cued-recall test after either a long retention interval (2 days) or short retention interval (3 min). Participants who made JOLs outperformed participants who did not, which was evident on long-term learning as well as short-term performance. Continuously cumulating meta-analyses revealed that these effects were strong (long-term learning, d = .66; short-term performance, d = .71). Thus, making JOLs appears to be an effective strategy to increase long-term retention of related information.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) can improve younger adults' associative learning of related information. One theoretical explanation for this finding is that JOLs strengthen the relationship between the cue and target words of a related word pair. This cue-strengthening hypothesis is particularly relevant for older adults because learning interventions that enhance associations between items typically benefit their learning. Thus, we investigated the degree to which JOLs have a direct influence on older adults' learning. To do so, older and younger adults studied a list of related word pairs (Experiments 1 and 2) or weakly related word pairs (Experiments 3, 4, and 5). Half of the participants made a JOL for each pair and half did not. After a filled 3-min retention interval, participants took a cued-recall test. In all experiments, older adults' memory performance was not impacted by making JOLs. By contrast, younger adults who made JOLs recalled significantly more than those who did not. JOLs may not have modified older adults' learning because of age-related deficits in processing that limited the degree to which JOLs strengthened cue-target relationships. It is also possible that JOLs encourage attentional reorienting, which older adults do not benefit from because they are already engaged with the materials. An important direction for future work will be to explore these possibilities, as well as others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).