Does testing enhance new learning because it insulates against proactive interference?

Abstract

Taking a test on previously learned material can enhance new learning. One explanation for this forward testing effect is that retrieval inoculates learners from proactive interference (PI). Although this release-from-PI account has received considerable empirical support, most extant evidence is correlational rather than causal. We tested this account by manipulating the level of PI that participants experience as they studied several lists while receiving interpolated tests or not. In Experiments 1 and 2 , we found that testing benefited new learning similarly regardless of PI level. These results contradict those from Nunes and Weinstein ( Memory , 20 (2), 138–154, 2012), who found no forward testing effect when encoding conditions minimized PI. In Experiments 3 and 4 , we failed to replicate their results. Together, our data indicate that reduced PI might be a byproduct, rather than a causal factor, of the forward testing effect.

Does testing potentiate new learning because it enables learners to use better strategies?

“…This finding thus places an important constraint on the strategy-change account, such that interim testing might affect learners’ subsequent retrieval strategies (Chan et al, 2020; Chan, Manley, et al, 2018; Dang et al, 2021), but leaving the encoding strategies unchanged. Consistent with this idea, a recent study by Ahn and Chan (2022) suggested that strategy change may occur during retrieval rather than encoding. Their participants studied several category word lists arranged with the same category words blocked together (i.e., blocked) or with a mixture of different category words per list (i.e., intermixed).…”

“…Their rationale was that presenting the same category words consecutively would encourage relational encoding even in the absence of testing, which should in turn reduce the performance gap between test and restudy. However, Ahn and Chan (2022) found that the forward testing effect was unaffected by category arrangements, which suggests that testing may not affect how participants encode subsequent materials.…”

“…Thus, participants who learn Chinese as a foreign language must encode the characters as abstract visuospatial representations (Flaherty, 2003; Shen, 2010). Given that most studies in the forward testing effect literature have used verbal materials such as word lists (Ahn & Chan, 2022; Szpunar et al, 2008), paired associates (Davis & Chan, 2015; Kornell et al, 2009), or prose and lecture materials (Jing et al, 2016; Wissman et al, 2011), investigating another type of representation such as visuospatial information is important for the generality of the phenomenon (cf., Kang, 2010), especially given that Chinese is the most spoken language in the world. We did not have any prior reason that using Chinese materials would yield a different effect compared to using verbal materials (partly because these materials have received little attention thus far), but as Hintzman (2011) suggested, examining the effect with various materials is important to form more comprehensive theories, and our study is to first to examine whether the forward testing effect extends to pictorial languages.…”

Speeding lectures to make time for retrieval practice: Can we improve the efficiency of interpolated testing?

“…With respect to the forward testing effect, Yang et al (2021) discuss four mechanisms: (a) testing reduces proactive interference by inducing context changes, (b) testing leads to a more effective strategy, (c) testing resets the encoding process leaving greater capacity for subsequent encoding, and (d) testing leads individuals to invest more effort (see Yang et al, 2018, for other potential mechanisms). Yang et al (2021) provide compelling evidence for (a; but see Ahn & Chan, 2022) and (b) but not (c) and did not test (d). Evidence for the latter (i.e., testing leads to increases in effort) was provided by Yang et al (2019), who demonstrated that study time decreased with each list in a setting with no tests but stayed more constant in a setting with tests.…”

The magnitude of the testing effect is independent of retrieval practice performance.

“…Because most existing studies were not explicitly designed to examine the relationship between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect, variations in retrieval practice performance coincided with changes in task demands. These changes might alter a learner’s behavior or strategies (Ahn & Chan, 2022, 2023; Cho & Neely, 2017), which could have downstream consequences on final test performance and the testing effect that are independent of retrieval practice performance per se. For example, recalling materials collaboratively (Vojdanoska et al, 2009) can alter how students approach a retrieval task and promote processes that are otherwise absent during individual recall (e.g., collaborative inhibition; Blumen & Rajaram, 2008).…”