Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval.

Carpenter, Shana K.

doi:10.1037/a0017021

Cited by 399 publications

(522 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

467

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies on the testing effect have typically examined how retrieving information from memory affects later retention of that information, and dominant theoretical explanations of the effect have focused on the strengthening or elaboration of the memory trace due to retrieval (e.g., Bjork, 1975;Carpenter, 2009;McDaniel & Masson, 1985). It is not obvious how such explanations would apply to the present situation of function learning, because subjects in the test/study condition might not necessarily have retrieved previous exemplars from memory during training (and certainly, early on in training there would be nothing to retrieve).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of testing on learning of functions

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is learning of a complex functional relationship enhanced by trying to predict what output will go with a given input, as compared to studying an input-output pair? We examined learning of a bilinear function and transfer to new items outside the trained range. Subjects either saw the input-output pairs (study-only condition) or attempted to guess the output and then saw the pair (test/study condition). The total study times were equated, and motivation was enhanced with a monetary bonus. Performance was markedly better for the test/study condition, both within the trained range and in the transfer test. This benefit of testing during training was observed on a criterial test administered shortly after training. Testing has long been shown to enhance the explicit learning and retention of verbal material; our present findings reveal a novel domain for which testing can also be advantageous-that is, function learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of testing on learning of functions

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been argued that tests appear to slow down the rate of forgetting because taking a practice test can result in stronger memory traces for successfully retrieved items compared to non-recalled items or restudied items (Halamish and Bjork 2011;Kornell et al 2011). One reason why tests might result in stronger memory traces is offered by the elaborative retrieval hypothesis (e.g., Carpenter 2009;Carpenter and DeLosh 2006). This hypothesis suggests that testing will result in more elaborate memory traces compared to passive restudy of information.…”

Section: Restudy Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that testing during learning can enhance the long-term retention of text material. In two experiments, we investigated the testing effect with a fill-in-the-blank test on the retention of text material. In Experiment 1, using a coherent text, we found no retention benefit of testing compared to a restudy (control) condition. In Experiment 2, text coherence was disrupted by scrambling the order of the sentences from the text. The material was subsequently presented as a list of facts as opposed to connected discourse. For the incoherent version of the text, testing slowed down the rate of forgetting compared to a restudy (control) condition. The results suggest that the connectedness of materials can play an important role in determining the magnitude of testing benefits for long-term retention. Testing with a completion test seems most beneficial for unconnected materials and less so for highly structured materials.Keywords The testing effect . Retrieval practice . Text coherence . Long-term retention In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest for the potential benefits of testing on long-term retention. Research has shown that taking tests during learning can have profound effects on later recall compared to less demanding learning strategies like repeated study Karpicke 2006a, 2006b). The general findings are especially surprising, since repeated study will most often result in superior performance on a recall test given shortly after learning. However, this short-term benefit is not long lasting. Repeated study will generally result in a relatively fast rate of forgetting, while successful retrieval of information during learning slows down the rate of forgetting (Carpenter et al. 2008;Wheeler et al. 2003). Consequently, testing generally results in superior recall performance after a relatively long retention interval. This so-called testing effect (also known as the retrieval practice effect) has been found with different types of materials and different types of tests and using a variety of retention interval conditions (Roediger and Karpicke 2006a). Claims have been made that the testing effect is of critical importance for education, and these claims have been corroborated by studies replicating Educ Psychol Rev (2015) 27:305-315

show abstract

“…Memory representations for interleaved items, on the other hand, are more likely to have been deactivated at the time the next one is presented, increasing the chances that retrieval of a previous interleaved item will be more elaborate or "complete" than retrieval of a previous blocked item. Given that retrieval of prior information benefits learning (e.g., Roediger & Butler, 2011;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a, b), particularly under conditions in which the retrieval process is more elaborate (e.g., Carpenter, 2009Carpenter, , 2011Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006;Pyc & Rawson, 2009), interleaving may be generally more beneficial than blocking because it encourages elaborative retrieval of previous items.…”

Section: Abstract Interleaving Pronunciation Learning Discriminatmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning

Carpenter

Mueller

2013

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have shown that students learn better when they are given repeated exposures to different concepts in a way that is shuffled or interleaved, rather than blocked (e.g., Rohrer Educational Psychology Review, 24, 355-367, 2012). The present study explored the effects of interleaving versus blocking on learning French pronunciations. Native English speakers learned several French words that conformed to specific pronunciation rules (e.g., the long "o" sound formed by the letter combination "eau," as in bateau), and these rules were presented either in blocked fashion (bateau, carreau, fardeau . . . mouton, genou, verrou . . . tandis, verglas, admis) or in interleaved fashion (bateau, mouton, tandis, carreau, genou, verglas . . .). Blocking versus interleaving was manipulated within subjects (Experiments 1-3) or between subjects (Experiment 4), and participants' pronunciation proficiency was later tested through multiple-choice tests (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) or a recall test (Experiment 3). In all experiments, blocking benefited the learning of pronunciations more than did interleaving, and this was true whether participants learned only 4 words per rule (Experiments 1-3) or 15 words per rule (Experiment 4). Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords Interleaving . Pronunciation learning . Discriminative contrastIn academic settings, students are often given multiple exposures to different concepts. Under typical conditions, a particular concept (e.g., conjugating foreign verbs in the present tense) is practiced over and over again before moving on to the next concept (e.g., conjugating foreign verbs in the past tense). However, recent evidence suggests that it may be more beneficial to present different concepts in an order that is shuffled and less predictable (e.g., practicing a present-tense conjugation followed by a past-tense conjugation, followed by more present-tense conjugations, etc.). For example, Rohrer and Taylor (2007) taught students to calculate the volume of 4 different types of solid figures. Students worked through practice problems in an order that was either blocked by type of figure (i.e., all problems pertaining to one type of figure were finished before the student moved on to the next type of figure) or interleaved such that the same problems appeared in an order that was shuffled and unpredictable. On a later test requiring students to calculate the volumes for similar types of figures, students scored higher if they had learned the information through interleaving, as compared with blocking.Other studies have reported benefits of interleaving on the learning of geometric concepts (e.g., Taylor & Rohrer, 2010) and algebraic rules (e.g., Mayfield & Chase, 2002). A small but growing number of studies has also reported benefits of interleaving for other types of cognitive and motor tasks as well (for reviews, see Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013;Rohrer, 2012). For example, Kornell and Bjork (2008) taught participants to classify...

show abstract

Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval.

Cited by 399 publications

References 35 publications

Effects of testing on learning of functions

Effects of testing on learning of functions

The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material

The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About