Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format

Abstract

The act of retrieving information modifies memory in critical ways. In particular, testing-effect studies have demonstrated that retrieval practice (compared to restudy or to no testing) benefits long-term retention and protects from retroactive interference. Although such testing effects have previously been demonstrated in both between-and within-subjects manipulations of retrieval practice, it is less clear whether one or the other testing format is most beneficial on a final test. In two paired-associate learning experiments conducted under typical testing-effect conditions, we manipulated restudy and test trials using either blocked or mixed practice conditions while equating other factors. Retrieval-practice and restudy trials were presented either separately in different blocks (blocked practice) or randomly intermixed (mixed practice). In Experiment 1, recall was assessed after short and long delay intervals; in Experiment 2, the final memory test occurred after a short delay, but with or without an interfering activity before the final test. In both experiments, typical testing effects emerged, and critically, they were found to be unaffected by practice format. These results support the conclusion that testing effects are robust and emerge to equal extents in both blocked and mixed designs. The generality of testing effects further encourages the application of retrieval practice as a memory enhancer in a variety of contexts, including education.

The benefits of testing: Individual differences based on student factors

“…In contrast, Pan and colleagues (2015) randomly mixed restudy and retrieval trials, which allowed for the possibility of carry over effects. Abel and Roediger (2017) however, have shown that the testing effect is equivalent across blocked and intermixed restudy. In the present study, participants were randomly assigned to complete either restudy first (n = 101) or practice retrieval first (n = 99).…”

“…Although this delay differs from the previous studies, empirical results have shown that delays longer than 5 mins show a testing effect whereas some studies with delays under 5 minutes show an advantage for restudying (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006;Roediger & Butler 2011). Additionally, Carpenter et al, (2008, study 1) compared delays of 5 mins, 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, or 42 days, and found no interaction between the testing effect and retrieval interval and testing effects were present at all delays (also see Able & Roediger, 2017;Avci et al, 2017). At final test participants completed self-paced cued recall of all 40 word pairs.…”

“…This is especially likely to happen if participants discover that retrieval practice improves learning. However, recent work by Abel and Roediger (2017) has shown that the testing effect is equivalent across blocked and intermixed restudy. Given the mixed findings of the Brewer and Unsworth (2012) and the Pan et al (2015) studies, the question of whether EM abilities are related to the magnitude of the testing effect is still largely unanswered.…”

Mediating Test Anxiety through the Testing Effect in Asynchronous, Objective, Online Assessments at the University Level

“…Others report that the option to retake exams lowers students' test anxiety and leads to higher student satisfaction with the course and instruction overall (Carey 2014;Brown et al, 2014). Hence, a growing body of evidence suggests the testing effect, enabled via a test-retest pedagogy, improves student's knowledge acquisition, classification, and retention (Butler et al, 2007;Roediger et al, 2011;Dirkx et al, 2014;Abel & Roediger, 2016, Batsell, Perry, Hanley, & Hostetter, 2017. Improving familiarity, progressive mastery via improving metacognitive accuracy, as well as processes of "test-potentiated learning," in turn, reportedly diminish a student's test anxiety (Brown et al, 2014).…”

“…In general, repeated testing benefits the test-taker by improving knowledge acquisition, classification, and retention (Butler et al, 2007;Karpicke, 2009;Dirkx et al, 2014;Agarwal et al, 2014;Abel & Roediger, 2016, Batsell, et al, 2017. The instrumentality of the testing effect, by offering a student a series of low-stress assessments, enables him or her to translate growing competency-based experience into the self-confidence that reduces, if not neutralizes, performance anxiety (Hembree, 1988;Ergene, 2003;Carey, 2014;Brown et al, 2014).…”