Abstract: The experimental study aimed at comparing the development of judgement of ‘retrospective monitory' and ‘prospective monitory' 3 × 3 × 2 (age, material, sex) three factors mixed experimental design was adopted. In terms of the performance of learning (good, medium, not good) were selected at random, the subjects were from second grade elementary school, junior high school and college. There were 18 subjects in every grade (9 males and 9 females). There were 3 groups (6 sheets) of word tables being diversed word couples, verb-noun word couples, and artifical built word couples. There were 3 sheets containing 15 couples each, as formal word couples, and other 3 sheets containing 5 couples each for exercise. The materials were all selected from Chinese books which the subjects of elementary school had studied. Using the memory equipment to assume the materials, the subjects reported the number of memory before and after the materials had been assumed, then reported the word couples which had been memorized, and assessed the degree of confidence. The experiment adopted alternative method to appoint the subjects. The development of judgement of ‘retrospective monitory' (assessing the degree of confidence) and ‘prospective monitory' (the number before and after the materiales had been assumed) was compared. The results; (1) The number of judgement in learning easiness, elementary school was 2.1389, junior high school was 0.6549, junior college was 0.3346; the number of recall readiness assessment, elementary school was 1.6225, junior high school was 0.4096, junior college was 0.2007; the number of retrospective monitory, elementary school was 0.1827, junior high school was 0.0734, junior college was 0.1163. (2) The level of difference conspicuous of 3 materiales, easiness of learning judgement was < 0.01, recall readiness assessment was > 0.05, retrospective monitory was > 0.05. (3) The level of difference conspicuous of sex was >0.05. (4) The correlation between achievement of memory and memory monitory, easiness of learning judgement was 0.7691, recall readiness assessment was 0.6199, retrospective monitory was 0.1306. The conclusion: (1) The rates of development of 3 monitories were different. The development of retrospective monitory was first. The second was recall readiness assessment. The development of easiness of learning judgement was third. (2) The effect of material was different in the development of the 3 monitories. (3) Sex difference was not obvious. (4) There was higher positive correlation between the level of prospective monitory and the performance of memory and lower correlation between the level of retrospective monitory and the performance of memory.

Key words: metamemory, memory monitory, prospective monitory, retrospective monitory