Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: a review of the forward testing effect

Yang, Chunliang; Potts, R B; Shanks, David R.

doi:10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y

Cited by 100 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Experiments 1 and 2 were consistent in detecting no benefits of guessing for guessed-different pairs, which we view as speaking against the attentional accounts of the benefits of guessing in our procedure. Nevertheless, it again needs to be noted that attentional mechanisms have previously been argued to provide the best explanation for the advantage of guessing over reading in a related, although not identical task (Potts & Shanks, 2014), and there is evidence that guessing both increases curiosity to know the answer and boosts memory performance for that answer (Potts et al, 2018). It thus stands to reason not to fully dismiss the attentional accounts before our initial findings are shown to be generalizable across experimental conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…To this aim, straight after the presentation of each pair participants were required to provide a judgement of learning (JOL) for this pair that is, rate their confidence in recalling the second word from that pair at test when presented with the first word. As previous studies have shown (Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012;Potts & Shanks, 2014; Running Head: MEMORY BENEFITS OF GUESSING 14 2017), participants are generally unaware that guessing boosts performance as compared to being presented with the intact pair (although see Potts et al, 2018, for indications that this may change with task experience). Our aim was to reveal whether this finding extends to our homograph-cue task, with a guessed-different pairs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In terms of testing, our study demonstrates how different testing conditions are sensitive to different aspects of memory traces arising as a consequence of initial guessing and the Running Head: MEMORY BENEFITS OF GUESSING 24 feedback that follows it. To date, studies on the benefits of guessing have mostly focused on cued-recall tests in which original cues were used to tap memories for the studied pairs (although see Shanks, 2014, andPotts et al, 2018, who used recognition tests with and without cues). We argue that such tests are sensitive mostly to the strengthening of cue-to-target associations at the time of encoding and thus they can be preferentially used to assess the benefits of guessing that depend on the pre-existing association between cues and their targets (see Hays et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two routes to memory benefits of guessing.

Zawadzka

Hanczakowski

2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempting to guess an answer to a memory question has repeatedly been shown to benefit memory for the answer as compared to merely reading what the answer is, even when the guess is incorrect. In this study, we investigate two potential explanations of this effect in a single experimental procedure. According to the semantic explanation, the benefits of guessing require a clear semantic relationship between the cue, the guess, and the target, and arise at the stage of guessing. The attentional explanation places the locus of the effect at the stage of feedback presentation and ignores the issue of semantic relatedness. To disentangle the two mechanisms, we used homograph cues with at least two different meanings (e.g., arms) and asked participants to either study an intact cue-target pair or guess a word related to each cue before being presented with the target. This allowed us to compare memory performance meaning of the cue as the later presented target (e.g., a guess legs for a pair arms-hug), versus a different meaning (e.g., weapons). In four experiments, we demonstrate that both the semantic and the attentional mechanism operate in the guessing task, but their roles are different: semantic relatedness supports memory for cue-to-target associations, while increased attention to feedback benefits memory for targets alone. We discuss these findings in the context of educational utility of errorful learning.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two routes to memory benefits of guessing.

Zawadzka

Hanczakowski

2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this example, List 1 represents original learning and List 2 represents new learning, and differences in performance for List 2 between the interspersed-testing condition and the no-testing condition demonstrate the influence of testing on new learning. A wealth of research has shown that testing can facilitate learning of new information (Chan, Meissner, & Davis, 2018;Pastotter & Bauml, 2014;Yang, Potts, & Shanks, 2018). In general, the TPNL effect is robust and applicable to a variety of learning situations.…”

Section: Change Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval and a lag: A strategy change perspective

Chan

Manley

Davis

et al. 2018

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practicing retrieval on previously studied materials can potentiate subsequent learning of new materials. In four experiments, we investigated the influence of retention interval and lag on this test-potentiated new learning (TPNL) effect. Participants studied four word lists and either practiced retrieval, restudied, or completed math problems following Lists 1-3. Memory performance on List 4 provided an estimate of new learning. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were tested on List 4 after either a 1 min or 25 min retention interval. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants took at 25 min break before studying List 4. A TPNL effect was observed in all experiments. To gain insight into the mechanism that may underlie TPNL, we analyzed the extent to which participants organized their recall from list to list. Relative to restudy and math, testing led to superior semantic organization across lists. Our results support a strategy change account of TPNL. AbstractPracticing retrieval on previously studied materials can potentiate subsequent learning of new materials. In four experiments, we investigated the influence of retention interval and lag on this test-potentiated new learning (TPNL) effect. Participants studied four word lists and either practiced retrieval, restudied, or completed math problems following Lists 1-3. Memory performance on List 4 provided an estimate of new learning. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were tested on List 4 after either a 1 min or 25 min retention interval. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants took at 25 min break before studying List 4. A TPNL effect was observed in all experiments. To gain insight into the mechanism that may underlie TPNL, we analyzed the extent to which participants organized their recall from list to list. Relative to restudy and math, testing led to superior semantic organization across lists. Our results support a strategy change account of TPNL.

show abstract

“…In our study, participants were thoroughly informed regarding the activities they would encounter during the procedure, including the final test following the last reading episode. The typical instruction given to participants in the TPNL paradigm is that interpolated activities will be determined randomly (Yang et al, 2018). Thus, an attempt is made to equalise expectations of a final test across conditions, and to ensure continued processing of materials across the study sequences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of retrieval type and feedback in test-potentiated new learning

Pavlić¹,

Vlašiček²,

Ivanec³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zagreb, Croatia Conflict of Interest statementWe hereby declare that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article Data availability statement The analysis plan was preregistered on GitHub (analysis-plan.md; first commit of analysis plan: b101f42; final relevant commit: 16afea3), as were the hypotheses (design.md; first commit of hypotheses: b101f42; final commit: dd0f863). The repository also serves all project materials, data and analyses scripts, together with the whole project history. It can be found at https://github.com/ffzg-erudito/inter-testing-feedback-2018. Materials are also available through https://osf.io/gk9a3/. The data is also hosted on https:// dataverse.ffzg.unizg.hr/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.23669/JVNVNR. AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank every one of our participants for making this study possible.Also, we would like to thank Marijana Glavica, our librarian, who has been tremendously helpful around data archiving and preparations for preprint publication.This study was conducted under the project E-rudito: An advanced online educational system for smart specialization and jobs of the future (KK.01.2.1.01.0009.), which is funded from the European Regional Development Fund, Operational programme competitiveness and cohesion 2014-2020. 1 The role of retrieval type and feedback in test-potentiated new learning Abstract This study explored the effects of retrieval and feedback on test-potentiated new learning.Participants read a text divided into three parts, between which they engaged in either episodic retrieval, semantic retrieval, or rereading. Participants in the retrieval conditions were randomly assigned to either receive or not to receive feedback on their achievement.We administered multiple choice questions whose distractors were designed specifically to facilitate proactive interference. Planned analyses showed that participants in the episodic retrieval condition scored higher on the final test than participants in the other two groups.Feedback was found to have no bearing on new learning -neither on its own, nor via interaction with the interpolated activity type. No effect regarding the number of proactive intrusions was found, although exploratory Bayesian analyses preclude rejecting an effect.Results are interpreted in terms of metacognitive theories that have previously been suggested as an explanation of the effect.

show abstract

Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: a review of the forward testing effect

Cited by 100 publications

References 53 publications

Two routes to memory benefits of guessing.

Two routes to memory benefits of guessing.

Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval and a lag: A strategy change perspective

The role of retrieval type and feedback in test-potentiated new learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About