Jonathan G Tullis

Interests

Research

Memory, Metamemory, Educational Applications of Cognitive Psychology, Cognition, Education

Teaching

MemoryCognitionEducationSelf Regulation

Courses

Scholarly Contributions

Chapters

• Peng, Y., & Tullis, J. G. (2021). Dividing attention and metacognition. In Digital Distractions in the College Classroom..
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2022). Peer discussions improve student learning.  . In Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum..
• Tullis, J. G. (2020). E-learning: The opportunities and challenges of online instruction.  . In Routledge Encyclopedia of Education.
• Finley, J. R., Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Metacognitive control of learning and remembering. In New Science of Learning(pp 109--131). Springer New York.

Journals/Publications

• Tullis, J. G. (2021). Selecting effectively contributes to the mnemonic benefits of self-generated cues.. Memory & Cognition.
• Tullis, J. G., & Finley, J. R. (2021). What characteristics make self-generated memory cues effective over time. Memory.
• Tullis, J. G., & Qiu, J. (2021). Generating mnemonics boosts recall of chemistry content.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
• Peng, Y., & Tullis, J. G. (2021). Dividing attention impacts metacognitive control more than monitoring.. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 2064-2074.
• Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2021). The negative reminding effect: Reminding impairs memory for contextual information.. Journal of Memory and Language, 121(104284).
• Peng, Y., & Tullis, J. G. (2020). Theories of intelligence influence self-regulated study choices and learning.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 487-496.
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(15).
• Tullis, J. G., & Maddox, G. (2020). The use of self-testing varies by grade and domain.. Metacognition and Learning, 15, 129-154.
• Zhang, D., & Tullis, J. G. (2020). Personal reminders: Self-generated reminders boost memory more than normatively related ones.. Memory & Cognition, 49, 645-659.
• Tullis, J. G., & Finley, J. R. (2018). Self-generated memory cues: Effective tools for learning, training, and remembering.. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences..
• Tullis, J. G., Fiechter, J. L., & Benjamin, A. S. (2018). The efficacy of learners' testing choices.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.
• Tullis, J. G. (2018). Predicting others’ knowledge: Knowledge estimation as cue-utilization. Memory & Cognition.
• Tullis, J. G., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2017). Predicting others’ memory performance: The accuracy and bases of social metacognition.. Journal of Memory & Language.
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. (2017). Computer programing knowledge can promote far transfer of complex systems knowledge.. Frontiers in Educational Psychology.
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). Comparison versus reminding. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 20.
• Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2015). Cue generation: How learners flexibly support future retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 43(6), 922-938. doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0517-3
  More info

  The successful use of memory requires us to be sensitive to the cues that will be present during retrieval. In many situations, we have some control over the external cues that we will encounter. For instance, learners create shopping lists at home to help remember what items to later buy at the grocery store, and they generate computer file names to help remember the contents of those files. Generating cues in the service of later cognitive goals is a complex task that lies at the intersection of metacognition, communication, and memory. In this series of experiments, we investigated how and how well learners generate external mnemonic cues. Across 5 experiments, learners generated a cue for each target word in a to-be-remembered list and received these cues during a later cued recall test. Learners flexibly generated cues in response to different instructional demands and study list compositions. When generating mnemonic cues, as compared to descriptions of target items, learners produced cues that were more distinct than mere descriptions and consequently elicited greater cued recall performance than those descriptions. When learners were aware of competing targets in the study list, they generated mnemonic cues with smaller cue-to-target associative strength but that were even more distinct. These adaptations led to fewer confusions among competing targets and enhanced cued recall performance. These results provide another example of the metacognitively sophisticated tactics that learners use to effectively support future retrieval.
• Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2015). Cueing others’ memories. Memory \& cognition, 43, 634--646.
• Tullis, J. G., & Hourihan, K. L. (2015). When will bigger be (recalled) better? The influence of category size on JOLs depends on test format. Memory & Cognition, 43(6), 910-921. doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0516-4
  More info

  Although it is well known that organized lists of words (e.g., categories) are recalled better than unrelated lists, little research has examined whether participants can predict how categorical relatedness influences recall. In two experiments, participants studied lists of words that included items from big categories (12 items), small categories (4 items), and unrelated items, and provided immediate JOLs. In Experiment 1, free recall was highest for items from large categories and lowest for unrelated items. Importantly, participants were sensitive to the effects of category size on recall, with JOLs to items from big categories actually increasing over the study list. In Experiment 2, one group of participants was cued to recall all exemplars from the categories in a blocked manner, whereas the other group was cued in a random order. As expected, the random group did not show the recall benefit for big categories over small categories observed in free recall, while the blocked group did. Critically, the pattern of metacognitive judgments closely matched actual cued recall performance. Participants’ JOLs were sensitive to the interaction between category size and output order, demonstrating a relatively sophisticated strategy that incorporates the interaction of multiple extrinsic cues in predicting recall.
• Tullis, J. G., Goldstone, R. L., & Hanson, A. J. (2015). Scheduling Scaffolding: The Extent and Arrangement of Assistance During Training Impacts Test Performance. Journal of motor behavior, 1--11.
• Tullis, J. G., Ryskin, R. A., Benjamin, A. S., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2015). Perspective-Taking in Comprehension, Production, and Memory: An Individual Differences Approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 898-915. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000093
  More info

  The ability to take a different perspective is central to a tremendous variety of higher level cognitive skills. To communicate effectively, we must adopt the perspective of another person both while speaking and listening. To ensure the successful retrieval of critical information in the future, we must adopt the perspective of our own future self and construct cues that will survive the passage of time. Here we explore the cognitive underpinnings of perspective-taking across a set of tasks that involve communication and memory, with an eye toward evaluating the proposal that perspective-taking is domain-general (e.g., Wardlow, 2013). We measured participants’ perspective-taking ability in a language production task, a language comprehension task, and a memory task in which people generated their own cues for the future. Surprisingly, there was little variance common to the 3 tasks, a result that suggests that perspective-taking is not domain-general. Performance in the language production task was predicted by a measure of working memory, whereas performance in the cue-generation memory task was predicted by a combination of working memory and long-term memory measures. These results indicate that perspective-taking relies on differing cognitive capacities in different situations.
• Tullis, J. G., Benjamin, A. S., & Liu, X. (2014). Self-pacing study of faces of different races: Metacognitive control over study does not eliminate the cross-race recognition effect. Memory \& cognition, 42, 863--875.
• Tullis, J. G., Benjamin, A. S., & Ross, B. H. (2014). The reminding effect: Presentation of associates enhances memory for related words in a list.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1526.
• Tullis, J. G., Braverman, M., Ross, B. H., & Benjamin, A. S. (2014). Remindings influence the interpretation of ambiguous stimuli. Psychonomic bulletin \& review, 21, 107--113.
• Benjamin, A. S., Tullis, J. G., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Criterion noise in ratings-based recognition: evidence from the effects of response scale length on recognition accuracy.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1601.
• Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory \& cognition, 41, 429--442.
• Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners. Psychonomic bulletin \& review, 19, 743--749.
• Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). The effectiveness of updating metacognitive knowledge in the elderly: Evidence from metamnemonic judgments of word frequency.. Psychology and aging, 27, 683.
• Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 109--118.
• Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective?. Cognitive psychology, 61, 228--247.

Presentations

• Tullis, J. G. (2023). Estimating what others know: How we predict others’ knowledge and the factors that influence those predictions.  . Brownbag. University of Pittsburgh.
• Tullis, J. G. (2022).  Learning with others: The mechanisms and long term learning benefits of peer instruction.  . Perusall Exchange. Online.
• Tullis, J. G. (2022). Always something there to remind me: Remindings modify memory and produce generalization.  . University of Arizona Cognitive Science Colloquium. Tucson, Az.
• Tullis, J. G. (2021). Estimating what others know: How we predict others’ knowledge and the factors that influence those predictions. . Brownbag. Vanderbilt University.
• Tullis, J. G. (2020). Blasts from the past: Encoding novel stimuli can prompt retrievals of prior episodes. . Brownbag. University of Pittsburgh.
• Tullis, J. G. (2020). Learning from examples.. McMaster Conference on Education & Cognition. McMaster University (online due to Covid).
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). How peer instruction changes student learning.  . AERA. San Francisco (canceled due to COVID): AERA.
• Tullis, J. G., & Qiu, J. (2020). Generating mnemonics boosts recall of chemistry content.  . 61st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Online due to COVID-19.
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2019). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?  . 60th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Montreal, Canada: Psychonomic Society.
• Tullis, J. G. (2018, December). Choosing Retrieval Practice: When and How Effectively Do Students Choose Testing.. Arizona Cognitive Science Conclave. Tempe.
• Tullis, J. G. (2018, November). Predicting Others’ Knowledge: Expertise and experience change what cues are used.. the 59th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. New Orleans.
• Tullis, J. G., & Peng, Y. (2018, April). Theories of intelligence influence restudy choices.. AERA. New York: AERA.
• Tullis, J. G., & Peng, Y. (2018, November). Theories of intelligence influence restudy choices.. the International Association for Metacognition conference. New Orleans.
• Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. (2017, Fall). Reminding vs. Comparison. 58th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Vancouver: Psychonomic Society.
• Tullis, J. G. (2016, December). Predicting others' understanding: Perspective-taking in knowledge estimation.. 7th Annual Arizona Cognitive Science Conclave. Arizona State University.
• Tullis, J. G. (2016, November). The influence of others' study choices on metacognitive monitoring and control.. Conference of the International Association for Metacognition. Boston.
• Tullis, J. G., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2016, November). Predicting the memory performance of others.. Conference of the International Association for Metacognition. Boston.
• Tullis, J. G. (2015, Fall). Remindings: The influence of prior episodes on present behavior.. Cognitive Science Colloquium. Tucson, Az: Cognitive Science Group.

Poster Presentations

• Heshmati, H., & Tullis, J. G. (2023).  Dividing attention impairs metacognitive monitoring. . 65th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. San Francisco, Ca..
• Li, J., & Tullis, J. G. (2023). The direction of reminding. . 65th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. San Francisco, Ca..
• Zhang, D., & Tullis, J. G. (2023). Retrieval practice versus mnemonics.  . 65th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. San Francisco, Ca..
• Li, J., Tullis, J. G., & Ping, Y. (2022).  Dividing attention does not impact the mnemonic benefits of reminding.  . 64th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Boston, MA.
• Tullis, J. G. (2022). Remindings cause false memories.  . 64th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Boston, MA.
• Zhang, D., Tullis, J. G., & Maddox, G. (2022). Middle and high school teachers’ beliefs about study strategies. American Psychological Association Conference. Minneapolis, MN: APA.
• Castro, S., & Tullis, J. G. (2021). Learning from examples: Generating or comparing. . McMaster Conference on Education and Cognition.
• Li, J., & Tullis, J. G. (2021). Reminding guides the use of self-regulated reading reflections.  . 62nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Online due to COVID-19.
• Tullis, J. G. (2021). Remindings cause interference in memory for related trivia facts.  . 62nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Online due to COVID-19.
• Milburn, H., Diehl, T., Maddox, G., & Tullis, J. G. (2021). Student and teacher sensitivity to the benefits of retrieval practice.  . the 61st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society.
• Tullis, J. G. (2018, September). The schedule of scaffolding affects math learning and metacognition.. the Center for Integrative Research on Cognition, Learning, and Education Conference. St. Louis.
• Tullis, J. G., & Zhang, D. (2018, November). Personal reminders: Idiosyncratic associations boost memory more than normative ones.. the 59th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. New Orleans: Psychonomics Society.
• Tullis, J. G. (2016, November). Estimating others' knowledge: Judgment conditions affect the accuracy and bases of estimates of difficulty for others.. 57th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Boston.
• Tullis, J. G. (2015, Fall). Remindings influence source memory. Annual meeting of the psychonomic society. Chicago, IL: Psychonomic Society.
• Tullis, J. G., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2015, Fall). Predicting others' memories.. Arizona Cognitive Science Conclave. Tucson.
• Tullis, J. G., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2015, fall). Predicting others' memories. Annual meeting of the psychonomic society. Chicago, IL: Psychonomic Society.