The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing

The present article addresses whether multiple-choice tests may change knowledge even as they attempt to measure it. Overall, taking a multiple-choice test boosts performance on later tests, as compared with nontested control conditions. This benefit is not limited to simple definitional questions, but holds true for SAT II questions and for items designed to tap concepts at a higher level in Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives. Students, however, can also learn false facts from multiple-choice tests; testing leads to persistence of some multiple-choice lures on later general knowledge tests. Such persistence appears due to faulty reasoning rather than to an increase in the familiarity of lures. Even though students may learn false facts from multiplechoice tests, the positive effects of testing outweigh this cost.     

Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test

A key educational challenge is how to correct students' errors and misconceptions so that they do not persist. Simply labelling an answer as correct or incorrect on a short-answer test (verification feedback) does not improve performance on later tests; error correction requires receiving answer feedback. We explored the generality of this conclusion and whether the effectiveness of verification feedback depends on the type of test with which it is paired. We argue that, unlike for short-answer tests, learning whether one's multiple-choice selection is correct or incorrect should help participants narrow down the possible answers and identify specific lures as false. To test this proposition we asked participants to answer a series of general knowledge multiple-choice questions. They received no feedback, answer feedback, or verification feedback, and then took a short-answer test immediately and two days later. Verification feedback was just as effective as answer feedback for maintaining correct answers. Importantly, verification feedback allowed learners to correct more of their errors than did no feedback, although it was not as effective as answer feedback. Overall, verification feedback conveyed information to the learner, which has both practical and theoretical implications.     

Body image trends among Icelandic adolescents: a cross-sectional national study from 1997 to 2010

The aim of this study was to evaluate trends in body image among Icelandic adolescents from 1997 to 2010. Data from five cross-sectional surveys conducted among national samples of 9th and 10th graders in Iceland using five time points (1997, 2000, 2006, 2009, and 2010) were compared to examine changes in body image. In total, 32,397 adolescents participated in the study. Body image among 14-15-year-old adolescents in Iceland improved significantly over the 13-year period. Girls reported more negative body image than boys at all time points. However, the positive change in body image from 1997 to 2010 was more pronounced for girls than boys, resulting in a narrower gap between the genders. The current results are encouraging and indicate that in an age of increased overweight and obesity, the body image of Icelandic adolescents is becoming more positive.     

Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages

The present research assessed the potential effects of expecting to teach on learning. In two experiments, participants studied passages either in preparation for a later test or in preparation for teaching the passage to another student who would then be tested. In reality, all participants were tested, and no one actually engaged in teaching. Participants expecting to teach produced more complete and better organized free recall of the passage (Experiment 1) and, in general, correctly answered more questions about the passage than did participants expecting a test (Experiment 1), particularly questions covering main points (Experiment 2), consistent with their having engaged in more effective learning strategies. Instilling an expectation to teach thus seems to be a simple, inexpensive intervention with the potential to increase learning efficiency at home and in the classroom.     

The costs and benefits of testing text materials

Tests have been shown to improve the later recall of tested information, a result known as the testing effect. Tests, however, can also impair the later recall of related information, an effect known as retrieval-induced forgetting. Although retrieval-induced forgetting has been demonstrated using a wide variety of materials, recent work suggests that learning information in the context of a coherent text passage may afford protection from retrieval-induced forgetting. In four experiments we explored the conditions under which retrieval-induced forgetting does and does not occur with such materials. We found that two factors—the coherence of the to-be-learned material and the competitiveness of retrieval practice—are important in determining whether retrieval-induced forgetting does or does not occur. Furthermore, even if retrieval-induced forgetting does occur, having the opportunity to restudy the forgotten information can prevent that forgetting from persisting. Taken together, these findings provide greater understanding of the costs and benefits of testing text materials, with possible implications for the optimisation of testing as a tool for learning in educational contexts.     

Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test

A key educational challenge is how to correct students’ errors and misconceptions so that they do not persist. Simply labelling an answer as correct or incorrect on a short-answer test (verification feedback) does not improve performance on later tests; error correction requires receiving answer feedback. We explored the generality of this conclusion and whether the effectiveness of verification feedback depends on the type of test with which it is paired. We argue that, unlike for short-answer tests, learning whether one's multiple-choice selection is correct or incorrect should help participants narrow down the possible answers and identify specific lures as false. To test this proposition we asked participants to answer a series of general knowledge multiple-choice questions. They received no feedback, answer feedback, or verification feedback, and then took a short-answer test immediately and two days later. Verification feedback was just as effective as answer feedback for maintaining correct answers. Importantly, verification feedback allowed learners to correct more of their errors than did no feedback, although it was not as effective as answer feedback. Overall, verification feedback conveyed information to the learner, which has both practical and theoretical implications.     

Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader

When presented with items that must be generated versus read at encoding, individuals typically remember better those items that they generated versus those that they only read. We examined whether--given the opportunity to experience such differential memorial consequences of generating versus reading--participants might change how they processed future to-be-read information. In a first set of two experiments, participants were able to profit from such an experience to the extent that a generation advantage was eliminated on subsequent memory tests of generated and read items. Two additional experiments demonstrated the critical nature of this experience in leading to improved processing of future to-be-read information and elimination of a generation advantage. We believe that these results relate to the characterization of the learner emerging from recent metacognitive research and have possible implications for how learners might be induced to process information more effectively.     

Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test

Monitoring one's knowledge during study is susceptible to a foresight bias (Koriat and Bjork, 2005). Judgments of learning (JOLs) are inflated whenever information that is present at study and absent, but solicited, at test, such as the targets in cue-target paired associates, highlights aspects of cues that are less apparent when those cues are presented alone. The present findings demonstrate that foresight bias can be alleviated by study-test experience (Experiment 1), particularly test experience (Experiments 2 and 3), and by delaying JOLs after study (Experiment 4) and that both foresight bias and its alleviation have behavioral consequences, as measured by study time allocation (Experiment 5). Collectively, the findings suggest that overconfidence and misallocation of study time arise from a mismatch that is inherent to education--that the answer is present at study and absent at test--and that alleviating the problem requires creating conditions at study that sensitize learners to retrieval conditions at test.     

Models of performance in learning multisegment movement tasks: consequences for acquisition,retention, and judgments of learning

Participants learned different keystroke patterns, each requiring that a key sequence be struck in a prescribed time. Trials of a given pattern were either blocked or interleaved randomly with trials on the other patterns and before each trial modeled timing information was presented that either matched or mismatched the movement to be executed next. In acquisition, blocked practice and matching models supported better performance than did random practice and mismatching models. In retention, however, random practice and mismatching models were associated with superior learning. Judgments of learning made during practice were more in line with acquisition than with retention performance, providing further evidence that a learner's current ease of access to a motor skill is a poor indicator of learning benefit.     

Metacognition in motor learning

Research on judgments of verbal learning has demonstrated that participants' judgments are unreliable and often overconfident. The authors studied judgments of perceptual-motor learning. Participants learned 3 keystroke patterns on the number pad of a computer, each requiring that a different sequence of keys be struck in a different total movement time. Practice trials on each pattern were either blocked or randomly interleaved with trials on the other patterns, and each participant was asked, periodically, to predict his or her performance on a 24-hr test. Consistent with earlier findings, blocked practice enhanced acquisition but harmed retention. Participants, though, predicted better performance given blocked practice. These results augment research on judgments of verbal learning and suggest that humans, at their peril, interpret current ease of access to a perceptual-motor skill as a valid index of learning.