Effects of testing on subsequent re‐encoding and long‐term forgetting of action‐relevant materials: On the influence of recall type

Testing one's memory of previously studied information reduces the rate of forgetting, compared to restudy. However, little is known about how this direct testing effect applies to action phrases (e.g., “wash the car”) – a learning material relevant to everyday memory. As action phrases consist of two different components, a verb (e.g., “wash”) and a noun (e.g., “car”), testing can either be implemented as noun‐cued recall of verbs or verb‐cued recall of nouns, which may differently affect later memory performance. In the present study, we investigated the effect of testing for these two recall types, using verbally encoded action phrases as learning materials. Results showed that repeated study–test practice, compared to repeated study–restudy practice, decreased the forgetting rate across 1 week to a similar degree for both noun‐cued and verb‐cued recall types. However, noun‐cued recall of verbs initiated more new subsequent learning during the first restudy, compared to verb‐cued recall of nouns. The study provides evidence that testing has benefits on both subsequent restudy and long‐term retention of action‐relevant materials, but that these benefits are differently expressed with testing via noun‐cued versus verb‐cued recall.     

A dual memory theory of the testing effect

A new theoretical framework for the testing effect—the finding that retrieval practice is usually more effective for learning than are other strategies—is proposed, the empirically supported tenet of which is that separate memories form as a consequence of study and test events. A simplest case quantitative model is derived from that framework for the case of cued recall. With no free parameters, that model predicts both proportion correct in the test condition and the magnitude of the testing effect across 10 experiments conducted in our laboratory, experiments that varied with respect to material type, retention interval, and performance in the restudy condition. The model also provides the first quantitative accounts of (a) the testing effect as a function of performance in the restudy condition, (b) the upper bound magnitude of the testing effect, (c) the effect of correct answer feedback, (d) the testing effect as a function of retention interval for the cases of feedback and no feedback, and (e) the effect of prior learning method on subsequent learning through testing. Candidate accounts of several other core phenomena in the literature, including test-potentiated learning, recognition versus cued recall training effects, cued versus free recall final test effects, and other select transfer effects, are also proposed. Future prospects and relations to other theories are discussed.     

Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items

In forward testing effects, taking a test enhances memory for subsequently studied material. These effects have been observed for previously studied and tested items, a potentially item-specific testing effect, and newly studied untested items, a purely generalized testing effect. We directly compared item-specific and generalized forward testing effects using procedures to separate testing benefits due to encoding versus retrieval. Participants studied two lists of Swahili–English word pairs, with the second study list containing “new” pairs intermixed with the previously studied “old” pairs. Participants completed a review phase in which they took a cued-recall test on only the “old” pairs or restudied them. In Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2, the review phase was given either before or after the second study list. Testing benefited memory to the same degree for both “new” and “old” pairs, suggesting that there were no pair-specific benefits of testing. The larger benefit from testing when review was given before rather than after the second study list suggests that the memory enhancement was due to both testing-enhanced encoding and testing-enhanced retrieval. To better equate generalized testing effects for “new” and “old” pairs, Experiment 3 intermixed them in the review phase. A statistically significant pair-specific testing effect for “old” items was now observed. Overall, these results show that forward testing effects are due to both testing-enhanced encoding and retrieval effects and that direct, pair-specific forward testing benefits are considerably smaller than indirect, generalized forward testing benefits.     

线索强度对测试效应的调节:时间间隔上的差异

本研究采用不同线索强度(强/弱)的中文词对, 选取大学生被试126人, 考察了不同学习方式(重学/测试)在不同时间间隔(5分钟/2天)最终自由回忆测试成绩上的差异。结果发现:在强线索强度词对上, 学习方式主效应显著, 测试条件的回忆成绩在5分钟以及2天后均高于重学条件;而在弱线索强度词对上, 学习方式与间隔时间交互作用显著, 5分钟时重学条件与测试条件的记忆成绩差异不显著, 而2天后测试条件的记忆成绩却显著高于重学条件。结果表明词对的线索强度能够调节测试对不同时间间隔记忆保持的促进作用, 支持了精细提取假设。     

Test-potentiated learning: three independent replications,a disconfirmed hypothesis,and an unexpected boundary condition

Arnold and McDermott [(2013). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940–945] isolated the indirect effects of testing and concluded that encoding is enhanced to a greater extent following more versus fewer practice tests, referred to as test-potentiated learning. The current research provided further evidence for test-potentiated learning and evaluated the covert retrieval hypothesis as an alternative explanation for the observed effect. Learners initially studied foreign language word pairs and then completed either one or five practice tests before restudy occurred. Results of greatest interest concern performance on test trials following restudy for items that were not correctly recalled on the test trials that preceded restudy. Results replicate Arnold and McDermott (2013) by demonstrating that more versus fewer tests potentiate learning when trial time is limited. Results also provide strong evidence against the covert retrieval hypothesis concerning why the effect occurs (i.e., it does not reflect differential covert retrieval during pre-restudy trials). In addition, outcomes indicate that the magnitude of the test-potentiated learning effect decreases as trial length increases, revealing an unexpected boundary condition to test-potentiated learning.     

Do tests facilitate decision‐making performance on a transfer task?

Testing can improve later recall of information. However, much less is known about the potential use of testing in promoting the transfer of learning. In this study, we investigated whether testing improves decision‐making performance on a transfer task in a sample of 98 university students using a between‐subjects design. After studying several statements about a fictional disease under different learning conditions (restudy, free recall, and multiple‐choice), participants were asked to recall this information and subsequently make medical decisions concerning the fictional disease (i.e., the transfer task). The present study found no advantage of testing conditions over restudy condition on the 30‐min delayed memory task. However, participants in the active retrieval practice (i.e., free recall) group performed significantly better on the transfer task over those in both restudy and multiple‐choice groups. These results suggest free‐recall tests promote the transfer of learning.     

汉字的无线索回忆再认效应:重复学习和重复测验的作用

采用无线索回忆再认范式,对基于熟悉性的汉字语义特征再认进行了探索,考察了重复学习和重复测验对汉字语义特征的无线索回忆再认效应(RWCR效应)的影响。实验1采用即时测验,实验2采用延时测验,结果发现:(1)无论即时还是延时测验,汉字语义特征的再认均存在RWCR效应。(2)在即时测验时,重复学习对熟悉性有显著影响,重复测验对熟悉性没有影响;重复学习和重复测验均提高回想成绩,但二者无差异。(3)在延时测验时,重复学习组和重复测验组的熟悉性评分均下降,但前者下降快于后者;重复测验组回想的遗忘率较低,重复学习组回想的遗忘率较高。上述结果说明,汉字的语义特征存在稳定的RWCR效应,且重复学习主要影响熟悉性,重复测验主要影响回想。进一步证明了再认记忆的双加工理论。     

What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test?

In two experiments, we investigated what types of learning benefit from a cued recall test. After initial exposure to a word pair (A+B), subjects experienced either an intervening cued recall test (A→?) with feedback, or a restudy presentation (A→B). The final test could be cued recall in the same (A→?) or opposite (?→B) direction, or free recall of just the cues (Recall As) or just the targets (Recall Bs). All final tests revealed a benefit for testing as opposed to restudying. Tests produced a direct benefit for information that was retrieved on the intervening test (B). This benefit also “spilled over” to facilitate recall of information that was present on the test but not retrieved (A). Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Expediting arithmetic automaticity: Do inefficient computation methods induce spontaneous testing effects?

Before achieving arithmetic automaticity (direct answer recall), learners self-compute answers or use calculators/tables. Mechanisms supporting arithmetic automaticity are of interest because automaticity predicts math achievement and employment outcomes. Future recall is enhanced when, during study, learners attempt to recall the to-be-learned information (“testing effect”). However, learners may not attempt retrieval when another strategy is available (computation, re-reading). We expected learners to more frequently attempt recall when the alternative strategy was inefficient. Participants learned novel arithmetic problems, and could recall answers (if able) or use a computation method, which varied by condition: (i) self-computation; (ii) calculator-computation; and (iii) using a calculator with scrambled keys. Final recall ability was highest after the condition with the most inefficient non-retrieval method (scrambled calculator). We assumed recall attempts preceded computation, but also considered parallel execution. As evidence against parallel retrieval, answer recall rarely interrupted computation (mental/calculator) after it began. Thus, learners should make pre-emptive recall attempts.     

Diminished testing benefits in young adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Memory retrieval has been shown to enhance the long-term retention of tested material; however, recent research suggests that limiting attention during retrieval can decrease the benefits of testing memory. The present study examined whether testing benefits are reduced in young adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). College students with and without ADHD read three short prose passages, each followed by a free recall test, a restudy period or a distractor task. Two days later participants recalled the passages. Although participants without ADHD did not show a significant benefit of testing over restudying, testing did produce recall benefits relative to not taking a test. These testing benefits were diminished in participants with ADHD, who did not show any advantage of testing over either restudying or no test. The absence of testing benefits in the ADHD group is likely due in part to decreased recall on the initial test. These findings have implications for improving educational practices among individuals with ADHD and also speak to the need to examine individual differences in the effectiveness of testing as a learning strategy.     

Costs and benefits of dropout schedules of test–restudy practice: Implications for student learning

Almost all previous studies examining the benefits of testing for promoting student learning have used fixed schedules of practice. However, students more often report utilizing a dropout schedule of practice, in which items are dropped from practice once they are known. Two experiments investigated the costs and benefits of utilizing a dropout schedule of test–restudy practice. Participants learned Swahili–English paired associates using a dropout schedule or a fixed schedule. In the dropout schedule, items received test–restudy practice until each item was correctly recalled once. In the fixed schedule, all items received three tests–restudy practice trials regardless of whether they were correctly recalled, as in previous research. Experiment 2 also included a second learning session. In both experiments, a final cued recall test was administered several days later. Results indicated that the benefits of the dropout schedule (fewer practice trials used overall and all items correctly recalled once during practice) need to be considered in light of the costs (lower levels of final test performance). Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Free recall enhances subsequent learning

Testing, or retrieval practice, has become a central topic in memory research. One potentially important effect of retrieval practice has received little attention, however: It may enhance, or potentiate, subsequent learning. We introduce a paradigm that can measure the indirect, potentiating effect of free recall tests on subsequent learning, and then test a hypothesis for why tests may have this potentiating effect. In two experiments, the benefit of a restudy trial was enhanced when prior free recall tests had been taken. The results from a third, correlational study suggested that this effect might be mediated by the effect of testing on organization. Not only do encoding conditions affect later retrievability, but also retrieval attempts affect subsequent encoding effectiveness.     

All of the above: When multiple correct response options enhance the testing effect

Previous research has shown that multiple choice tests often improve memory retention. However, the presence of incorrect lures often attenuates this memory benefit. The current research examined the effects of “all of the above” (AOTA) options. When such options are correct, no incorrect lures are present. In the first three experiments, a correct AOTA option on an initial test led to a larger memory benefit than no test and standard multiple choice test conditions. The benefits of a correct AOTA option occurred even without feedback on the initial test; for both 5-minute and 48-hour retention delays; and for both cued recall and multiple choice final test formats. In the final experiment, an AOTA question led to better memory retention than did a control condition that had identical timing and exposure to response options. However, the benefits relative to this control condition were similar regardless of the type of multiple choice test (AOTA or not). Results suggest that retrieval contributes to multiple choice testing effects. However, the extra testing effect from a correct AOTA option, rather than being due to more retrieval, might be due simply to more exposure to correct information.     

Retrieval practice and retention of course content in a middle school science classroom

We investigated the effect of retrieval practice (i.e., the use of testing to enhance learning) by middle school students on science learning in an authentic educational setting. For initial study, all students (n = 39) read a science text and made study notes about the text, a regular study activity in their course. For restudy (2 days later), students either copied their notes or did retrieval practice. For the final test (an additional 2 days later), all students did a recall task from memory. Students in the retrieval practice condition showed better retention of information than students in the copy condition. These results add to a growing body of research on the use of retrieval practice as an effective learning tool for retention within authentic school settings.     

Study for now,but judge for later: Delayed judgments of learning promote long‐term retention

Larsson Sundqvist, M., Todorov, I., Kubik, V. & Jönsson, F.U. (2012) Study for now, but judge for later: Delayed judgments of learning promote long‐term retention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 450–454. Delayed judgments of learning (JOL) are assumed to be based on covert retrieval attempts. A common finding is that testing memory during learning improves later retention (i.e., the testing effect), and even more so than an equivalent amount of study, but only after a longer retention interval. To test the assertion that also delayed JOLs improve memory, the participants either studied Swahili‐Swedish word pairs four times, or they both studied (two times) and performed delayed JOLs (two times) alternately. Final cued recall test were given after either five minutes or one week. Results showed a reliable learning‐group by retention‐interval interaction, with less forgetting in the group that alternated between studying and making JOLs. The results are discussed in relation to the self‐fulfilling prophecy account of Spellman and Bjork (1992) , and in terms of study advice, the results further underscore the importance of delaying JOLs when studying and evaluating one’s ongoing learning.     

The influence of intentional versus incidental retrieval practices on the role of recollection in test-enhanced learning

A testing effect occurs when taking a test leads to more durable memory for tested materials, relative to restudying them during the same period of time. In the current study, we examined whether incidental and intentional restudy/testing practice modes during a practice phase would modulate the contribution of recollection-based and familiarity-based retrieval in a final recognition test. Both practice strategy (restudy versus testing) and practice mode (incidental vs. intentional) were manipulated between participants (N = 160). The restudy and testing groups performed a semantic rating task and a word fragment completion task, respectively, in the incidental condition or in the intentional condition. Only those participants in the intentional condition were instructed to recall or restudy the targets. All participants went through two study–practice cycles that involved two different sets of targets. After the second cycle, participants performed a list-discrimination recognition test that could assess the contributions of recollection-based and familiarity-based retrieval on test-enhanced learning. The testing effect occurred in the intentional condition, but not in the incidental condition. Relative to intentional restudy, intentional testing boosted recollection, but not familiarity, demonstrating the role of recollection in test-enhanced learning.     

Mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice at short retention intervals

The testing effect refers to the retention benefit conferred by prior retrieval of information from memory. Although the testing effect is a robust phenomenon, a common assumption is that reliable memory benefits only emerge after long retention intervals of days or weeks. The present study focused on potential test-induced retention benefits for brief retention intervals on the order of minutes and tens of seconds. Participants in four experiments studied lists of words. Some of the items were subjected to an initial cued recall test, and others were re-presented for additional study. Free recall tests were administered in each experiment following retention intervals ranging from 30 s to 8 min. When initial retrieval practice was successful (Experiments 1 through 3), or feedback compensated for unsuccessful retrieval (Experiment 4), significant testing effects emerged at all retention intervals. Results are discussed in the context of a bifurcated item-distribution model and highlight the importance of initial test performance and the type of analysis employed when examining testing effect data.     

Retention of autobiographical memories: An Internet-based diary study

In this online study we examined the retention of recent personal events using an Internet-based diary technique. Each participant (N=878) recorded on a website one recent personal event and was contacted after a retention interval that ranged between 2 and 46 days. We investigated how well the participants could recall the content, time, and details of their recorded event. We found a classic retention function. Details of the events were forgotten more rapidly than the content and the time of the events. There were no differences between the forgetting rates of the “who”, “what” and “where” elements of the content component. Reminiscing, social sharing, pleasantness, and frequency of occurrence aided recall, but surprisingly importance and emotionality did not. They were, however, strongly associated with reminiscing and social sharing.     

Test-potentiated learning of motor sequences

We investigated effects of retrieving body movements from memory on subsequent re-encoding of these movements (i.e., test-potentiated learning). In Experiment 1, participants first learned to perform 12 sequential finger movements as responses to letter stimuli. Eight of these movements then had to be recalled in response to their stimuli (initial test). Subsequently, learning trials were repeated for four of the previously to-be-retrieved movements as well as the previously not-to-be-retrieved movements. Restudy benefited from prior retrieval. In a final test, again requiring motoric recall in response to letter stimuli, performance was better for restudied items that were previously cued for retrieval as compared to items that had been restudied without prior retrieval. However, no such indirect testing benefit occurred when initial and final testing formats were incongruent, that is, when participants had to recall the stimuli in response to movements as cues at the final test. In Experiment 2, we replicated the finding of test-potentiated learning with a different design, manipulating initial-testing status between participants.