Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits

Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223–239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments (ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1–2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions.     

协作抑制的多机制解释:来自编码加工方式和编码相似性的证据

协作抑制是指小组提取的信息量比等量个体单独提取的信息总量要少。对于协作过程降低小组成员提取潜能的机制解释,不同研究之间仍有争论。本研究实验1使用经典的生存加工范式,实验2使用联想记忆训练法,分别考察编码加工方式和编码相似性对协作提取成绩的影响,从而检验提取抑制和策略破坏机制是否能分别影响协作抑制。研究结果表明,被试在生存和非生存(愉悦度和自我经历)加工条件下都出现协作抑制现象,而生存加工条件下的协作抑制量显著小于非生存加工条件;在使用联想记忆训练法之后,相同学习顺序组没有出现协作抑制,而不同学习顺序组出现了经典的协作抑制。本研究结果为协作抑制的可能存在的多机制解释提供了证据。     

回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节——情绪效价和编码水平的影响

前人在项目回忆条件的合作记忆研究中记录到明显的合作抑制和错误修剪,背景提取条件的相关研究尤显不足;同时,情绪效价和编码水平对两类现象调节的研究尚未涉及。为此,本文在两个实验中采用经典合作记忆研究范式,以不同情绪效价的词汇为实验材料并以词汇在学习阶段的呈现颜色为背景展开研究。实验1和实验2分别在学习阶段采用了深编码和浅编码任务,回忆阶段则均含项目回忆(回忆已学词汇)和背景提取(回忆词汇在学习阶段的呈现颜色)两种任务。采用深编码条件的实验1的结果显示,项目回忆比背景提取条件的合作抑制更强、错误修剪更弱,回忆任务与词汇情绪效价交互影响合作抑制强度;采用浅编码条件的实验2则发现错误修剪在两种任务间的差异不显著。两实验的联合分析显示,回忆任务与编码水平交互影响合作抑制和错误修剪强度。上述结果表明:回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节支持双重加工模型;回忆任务与情绪效价对合作抑制强度的交互影响支持权衡说,且与双重加工模型相吻合;回忆任务与编码水平交互影响合作抑制和错误修剪强度。     

协作抑制的作用机制：来自编码阶段的证据

协作抑制是指当人们在一个记忆小组中一起提取信息的时候,小组提取的信息总量比等量个体提取的信息总量要少。本研究采用经典的协作抑制研究范式和两次提取任务,考察编码方式和学习次数对协作提取任务的影响,进一步将考察协作抑制的产生机制作为总研究目的。结果表明,编码方式相同条件下出现协作抑制,而编码方式不同条件下协作抑制消失,显示协作抑制的出现与否依赖于认知条件的改变;无论是学习一次还是学习两次,在第一次小组提取中出现协作抑制,而在第二次个人提取中协作抑制消失,在使用困难学习材料时也得到同样的研究结果。研究结果支持协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说。     

Collaboration enhances later individual memory for emotional material

Research on collaborative remembering suggests that collaboration hampers group memory (i.e., collaborative inhibition), yet enhances later individual memory. Studies examining collaborative effects on memory for emotional stimuli are scarce, especially concerning later individual memory. In the present study, female undergraduates watched an emotional movie and recalled it either collaboratively (n?=?60) or individually (n?=?60), followed by an individual free recall test and a recognition test. We replicated the standard collaborative inhibition effect. Further, in line with the literature, the collaborative condition displayed better post-collaborative individual memory. More importantly, in post-collaborative free recall, the centrality of the information to the movie plot did not play an important role. Recognition rendered slightly different results. Although collaboration rendered more correct recognition for more central details, it did not enhance recognition of background details. Secondly, the collaborative and individual conditions did not differ with respect to overlap of unique correct items in free recall. Yet, during recognition former collaborators more unanimously endorsed correct answers, as well as errors. Finally, extraversion, neuroticism, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms did not moderate the influence of collaboration on memory. Implications for the fields of forensic and clinical psychology are discussed.     

集体记忆中的协作促进及其原因

摘 要 协作促进是指先前协作提取的经验对后续的个人提取具有积极影响。为了探讨协作促进产生的基本条件及其原因,本研究通过两个实验分别考察了小组的人数和回忆方式对协作促进的影响以及他人再现和交叉线索对协作促进的贡献。结果表明：无论小组的大小为2人组、3人组还是4人组,回忆方式为轮流回忆还是自由回忆均能产生协作促进,且轮流回忆的协作促进量要高于自由回忆的协作促进量;他人再现对协作促进的贡献大于交叉线索。这说明协作促进是一个稳定的现象,其主要原因是他人再现的作用。     

The influence of multiple trials and computer-mediated communication on collaborative and individual semantic recall

Collaborative inhibition is a phenomenon where collaborating groups experience a decrement in recall when interacting with others. Despite this, collaboration has been found to improve subsequent individual recall. We explore these effects in semantic recall, which is seldom studied in collaborative retrieval. We also examine “parallel CMC”, a synchronous form of computer-mediated communication that has previously been found to improve collaborative recall [Hinds, J. M., & Payne, S. J. (2016). Collaborative inhibition and semantic recall: Improving collaboration through computer-mediated communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 554–565]. Sixty three triads completed a semantic recall task, which involved generating words beginning with “PO” or “HE” across three recall trials, in one of three retrieval conditions: Individual–Individual–Individual (III), Face-to-face–Face-to-Face–Individual (FFI) and Parallel–Parallel–Individual (PPI). Collaborative inhibition was present across both collaborative conditions. Individual recall in Recall 3 was higher when participants had previously collaborated in comparison to recalling three times individually. There was no difference between face-to-face and parallel CMC recall, however subsidiary analyses of instance repetitions and subjective organisation highlighted differences in group members' approaches to recall in terms of organisation and attention to others' contributions. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to retrieval strategy disruption.     

Short-term and long-term collaboration benefits on individual recall in younger and older adults

A recent study of younger adults suggests that, compared to repeated individual recall trials, repeated collaborative recall trials produce better individual recall after a short delay (Blumen & Rajaram, 2008). Our study was designed to determine if such collaboration benefits would remain after a one-week delay, in both younger and older adults. Sixty younger (M age = 24.60) and 60 older (M age = 67.35) adults studied a list of words and then completed either two collaborative recall trials followed by two individual recall trials, or four individual recall trials. A five-min delay was inserted between the first three recall trials. The fourth recall trial was administered 1 week later. Collaborative recall was completed in groups of three individuals working together. Both younger and older adults benefitted from repeated collaborative recall trials to a greater extent than repeated individual recall trials, and such collaboration benefits remained after a one-week delay. This is the first demonstration of collaboration benefits on later individual recall at delays as long as 1 week, in both younger and older adults. Findings are discussed within the context of the negative effects of collaboration associated with group memory (collaborative inhibition) and the positive effects of collaboration associated with later individual memory (collaboration benefits).     

Collaborative inhibition in spatial memory retrieval

Collaborative inhibition refers to the finding that pairs of people working together to retrieve information from memory—a collaborative group—often retrieve fewer unique items than do nominal pairs, who retrieve individually but whose performance is pooled. Two experiments were designed to explore whether collaborative inhibition, which has heretofore been studied using traditional memory stimuli such as word lists, also characterizes spatial memory retrieval. In the present study, participants learned a layout of objects and then reconstructed the layout from memory, either individually or in pairs. The layouts created by collaborative pairs were more accurate than those created by individuals, but less accurate than those of nominal pairs, providing evidence for collaborative inhibition in spatial memory retrieval. Collaborative inhibition occurred when participants were allowed to dictate the order of object placement during reconstruction (Exp. 1), and also when object order was imposed by the experimenter (Exp. 2), which was intended to disrupt the retrieval processes of pairs as well as of individuals. Individual tests of perspective taking indicated that the underlying representations of pair members were no different than those of individuals; in all cases, spatial memories were organized around a reference frame aligned with the studied perspective. These results suggest that inhibition is caused by the product of group recall (i.e., seeing a partner’s object placement), not by the process of group recall (i.e., taking turns choosing an object to place). The present study has implications for how group performance on a collaborative spatial memory task may be optimized.     

Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall

When people recall together in a collaborative group they recall less than their potential. This phenomenon of collaborative inhibition is explained in terms of retrieval disruption. However, collaborative recall also re-exposes individuals to items recalled by others that they themselves might otherwise have forgotten. This re-exposure produces post-collaborative benefits in individual recall. The current study examined whether reduced retrieval disruption during group recall is related not only to less collaborative inhibition, but also to greater post-collaborative recall benefits. To test this we devised a paradigm to calculate the extent to which each individual experienced retrieval disruption during group recall. We also included two types of collaborative groups, one of which was expected to experience greater retrieval disruption than the other. Results suggest that the relationship between retrieval disruption and recall performance depends on the level at which retrieval disruption is measured. When retrieval disruption was assessed at the individual level, then minimising retrieval disruption was associated with higher recall (i.e., less collaborative inhibition and greater post-collaborative individual recall). However, when retrieval disruption was assessed at the group level there was no relationship with recall. Furthermore, the findings from this design suggest a role of cross-cueing in modulating group recall levels.     

Effects of repeated collaborative retrieval on individual memory vary as a function of recall versus recognition tasks

Our research examines how prior group collaboration modulates later individual memory. We recently showed that repeated collaborative recall sessions benefit later individual recall more than a single collaborative recall session (Blumen & Rajaram, 2008). Current research compared the effects of repeated collaborative recall and repeated collaborative recognition on later individual recall and later individual recognition. A total of 192 participants studied a list of nouns and then completed three successive retrieval sessions in one of four conditions. While two collaborative recall sessions and two collaborative recognition sessions generated comparable levels of individual recall (CRecall-CRecall-I Recall ～ CRecognition-CRecognition-I Recall , Experiment 1a), two collaborative recognition sessions generated greater levels of individual recognition than two collaborative recall sessions (CRecognition-CRecognition- IRecognition > CRecall-CRecall- I Recognition , Experiment 1b). These findings are discussed in terms of two opposing mechanisms that operate during collaborative retrieval—re-exposure and retrieval disruption—and in terms of transfer-appropriate processing across collaborative and individual retrieval sessions.     

Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: evidence for a retrieval-based account

In Experiment 1 participants gave 3 successive free recalls of items learned either individually or in pairwise collaboration. The first and third recalls were performed individually, the second alone or in collaboration. Collaborative recall led to an inhibitory effect after individual learning but not after collaborative learning, in which partners had similar retrieval strategies. Consistent with a retrieval locus for collaborative inhibition, non-recalled items reappeared in subsequent individual recall. Experiment 2 showed that collaborative inhibition was eliminated when a separate retrieval cue was given for each item. Experiments 2 and 3 also showed that when participants learned items in the same order, their retrieval strategies were more similar and they showed less collaborative inhibition. It is concluded that mutual interference in collaborative recall is due to the mutual disruption of individual retrieval strategies.     

Collaborative recall of details of an emotional film

Collaborative inhibition refers to the phenomenon that when several people work together to produce a single memory report, they typically produce fewer items than when the unique items in the individual reports of the same number of participants are combined (i.e., nominal recall). Yet, apart from this negative effect, collaboration may be beneficial in that group members remove errors from a collaborative report. Collaborative inhibition studies on memory for emotional stimuli are scarce. Therefore, the present study examined both collaborative inhibition and collaborative error reduction in the recall of the details of emotional material in a laboratory setting. Female undergraduates (n = 111) viewed a film clip of a fatal accident and subsequently engaged in either collaborative (n = 57) or individual recall (n = 54) in groups of three. The results show that, across several detail categories, collaborating groups recalled fewer details than nominal groups. However, overall, nominal recall produced more errors than collaborative recall. The present results extend earlier findings on both collaborative inhibition and error reduction to the recall of affectively laden material. These findings may have implications for the applied fields of forensic and clinical psychology.     

Overcoming Collaborative Inhibition through Error Correction: A Classroom Experiment

Research in classrooms has shown mixed evidence for benefits of collaborative learning compared with learning individually. Moreover, laboratory research has shown that individuals working in dyads or groups often perform worse than individuals working alone — a robust finding called the collaborative inhibition effect. Despite these findings, we hypothesize that some classroom activities may afford benefits for collaborative learning over individual learning. We created a classroom writing activity that incorporated features such as shared prior knowledge and error‐correction processes, which have been hypothesized to eliminate collaborative inhibition and to support constructive collaboration. Students participated in this activity either individually or in dyads. Results showed that the individuals who worked collaboratively performed equally well as those who worked individually and also showed better learning as measured by performance on a future writing assignment. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响

当人们与搭档组成社会群体一起协作讨论某些已经发生的事件或经验时, 该社会群体中的成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响仍不明确。本研究通过两项实验, 分别使用语词词单和情景故事作为实验材料, 考察成员关系(包括关系类型和关系时长)对协作提取成绩的影响。研究结果表明, 当记忆的材料为语词词单时, 青年陌生组出现了协作抑制; 而当记忆的材料为情景故事时, 青年夫妻和老年夫妻组均出现了协作促进。此外, 老年夫妻在协作提取情景故事的过程中使用的有效交流策略更多, 且这些有效交流策略的使用与更高的协作提取成绩有关。该结果支持了具有长时亲密关系的老年夫妻之间的“交互记忆系统”对协作促进的关键作用, 为理解成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响提供了全面的证据。     

Group remembering: does social loafing underlie collaborative inhibition?

When people collaborate to recall information, they experience collaborative inhibition, a deficit in recall relative to nominal groups (the pooled, nonredundant recall of individuals working alone). That is, people recalling in groups do not perform up to their potential. Collaborative inhibition may be due to retrieval interference (e.g., B. H. Basden, D. R. Basden, S. Bryner, & R. L. Thomas, 1997) or to motivational factors such as social loafing in the group situation. Five experiments examined the role of motivational factors by varying monetary incentives, recall criterion, personal accountability, group cohesion, and group gender. Increasing motivation sometimes increased the overall level of recall but failed to eliminate the collaborative inhibition effect. The results suggest that collaboration interferes with an individual's ability to reconstruct his or her knowledge.     

Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall

Two experiments tested the effects of encoding manipulations on group recall and on the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. Collaborative inhibition refers to the phenomenon where by a collaborative group recalls less than do the same number of individuals who work alone and then have their nonredundant responses pooled. Participants studied categorized word lists once or three times (Experiment 1) or under conditions of full versus divided attention (Experiment 2). Study repetition both improved retrieval organization in recall and attenuated collaborative inhibition, and divided attention encoding both reduced retrieval organization in recall and eliminated collaborative inhibition. These experiments are the first to focus on encoding variables and to show that collaborative inhibition can vary as a function of encoding manipulations.     

注意资源、学习方式与年龄因素对协作抑制的影响

本研究在前人研究的基础上,试图探讨不同编码因素对协作抑制效应的制约作用,从协作抑制角度为挖掘集体记忆的作用机制提供证据。实验1结果发现,集中注意条件下,出现协作抑制;分配注意条件下,协作抑制消失。说明学习时注意资源的投入程度,对协作抑制有影响。实验2结果发现不同的学习方式对协作抑制的影响在不同年龄被试身上表现不同。本研究将视角聚焦于编码因素,研究结果证实,协作抑制受到不同编码因素的制约,此外,本结果亦为协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说提供了新的证据。     

Collaborative inhibition persists following social processing

In this experiment, participants read target words that were presented in the context of a social sentence “Willow towered over Meadow” or a nonsocial sentence “The willow towered over the meadow.” Subsequently, they received a surprise cued recall test for the target nouns/names and completed the test either alone or in a group of two. Despite the fact that the stimulus materials were held constant across conditions, participants showed a social processing advantage in memory—that is, they remembered the social (name) versions of the target words significantly better than the nonsocial (noun) versions. Further, the social benefit was not strong enough to neutralise the inhibitory effects of collaboration as collaborative groups (two people working together) recalled significantly fewer words than did nominal groups (combined, nonredundant, output of two individuals working separately). The present study also demonstrated robust collaborative inhibition with cued recall, a task previously assumed to eliminate such inhibition.     

How do students implement collaborative testing in real-world contexts?

Recent research has explored the effects of collaborative testing, showing costs and benefits during learning and for subsequent memory. However, no prior research is informative about whether and how students use collaborative testing in real-world contexts. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current research was to explore the extent to which students use collaborative testing during self-regulated learning. We conducted three surveys (n = 692 across three samples) asking students about their use of collaborative testing, with a particular interest in conditions under which students report implementing collaborative testing. Among the key outcomes, a majority of students reported using collaborative testing when studying in a group. Additionally, students reported that key term definitions are the material most often used during collaborative testing. Students are also more motivated to use testing and believe testing is more effective and more fun when implemented in a group versus alone. Outcomes also shed light on metacognitive components of collaborative testing, with the student asking (versus answering) the question making the monitoring judgement whereas both students make the control decision about when to terminate practice. We discuss ways in which the collaborative memory literature can be extended to support more successful student learning.