Good Learners Are Poor Monitors: A Negative Relation Between Learning Ability and Monitoring Accuracy
Effective learning involves not only the ability to quickly acquire knowledge and skills, but also the capacity to accurately monitor one's ongoing learning progress. The present research probed the relation between learning ability and monitoring accuracy. A meta-analysis (Study 1, <i>N</i> = 2,406) counterintuitively found that individuals with superior learning ability exhibited slightly poorer monitoring accuracy (measured as the resolution of judgments of learning). Study 2 reanalyzed the meta-analysis data and observed that expert learners remembered more items they erroneously believed they would not remember, and this underconfidence in expert learners led to a negative association between learning ability and monitoring accuracy. Studies 3 (<i>N</i> = 102, adults aged 18-23) and 4 (<i>N</i> = 481, adults aged 18-59) conceptually replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 in controlled experiments. These findings challenge the conventional wisdom that good learners are also good monitors, suggesting instead that expert learners are actually the ones with monitoring deficits.
Authors
- Anran Li (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0987-3752)
- Liang Luo (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8538-336X)
- Yadi Yu (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8459-7697)
- Xiaofang Tian
- David R. Shanks (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4600-6323)
- Chunliang Yang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4995-7300)
- Mengqi Hu (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7701-0184)
- Xiao Hu (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8899-6273)
- Wenbo Zhao (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7727-151X)
- Mengfen Liu
Institutions
- Beijing Normal University (CN)
- Tianjin Vocational Institute (CN)
- University College London (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Psychological Science
- Published
- 2025-08-22
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251358838
- Primary Topic
- Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00