Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect

Carpenter, Shana K.; DeLosh, Edward L.

doi:10.3758/bf03193405

Cited by 333 publications

(400 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

363

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some hypotheses considered for verbal materials might be pertinent to nonverbal materials as well (for reviews of hypotheses, see Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006;Carrier & Pashler, 1992), others would seem less applicable. Understanding these boundaries may also help in formulating and testing neurocomputational models of the phenomenon (see, e.g., Mozer, Howe, & Pashler, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

Carpenter

Pashler

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

121

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

Carpenter

Pashler

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

121

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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%

“…Support for this hypothesis has been provided by studies showing that the effect of testing can get more pronounced as the amount of cue support on the practice tests diminishes. For instance, in a study by Carpenter and DeLosh (2006), it was found that retrieving items with fewer letter cues was associated with better final recall test performance. One way to explain the results from the present study could be in light of the elaborative retrieval hypothesis.…”

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

“…Specifically, if participants required few cues (1 or 2 letters) before generating a correct response, they were more likely to remember that correct response on a final test than if they needed the majority of the cues to be presented to generate the answer. Finn and Metcalfe's (2010) results suggest that when fewer cues are presented, more "effort" is required to retrieve the correct response, and thus, the benefits of retrieval are more substantial than if more cues are provided to the participants (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 89%

The Influence of Feedback on Predictions of Future Memory Performance

Sitzman¹

2013

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE INFLUENCE OF FEEDBACK ON PREDICTIONS OF FUTURE MEMORY PERFORMANCEThe current experiments explored metacognitive beliefs about feedback. In Experiment 1, participants studied Lithuanian-English word pairs, took an initial test, were either shown correct answer feedback, right/wrong feedback, or no feedback. They then made a judgment of learning (JOL) regarding the likelihood of answering this item correctly on a later test. Participants were tested on the same word pairs during the final test. Although average JOLs were higher for items in the correct answer feedback condition, relative accuracy was impaired. Experiment 2 explored participants' beliefs about feedback by having half of them make JOLs prior to seeing an item (PreJOLs), with only knowledge of whether feedback would be provided. Participants in both the regular JOL and preJOL conditions provided higher average JOLs for items in the feedback condition than items in the no feedback condition; however relative accuracy was decreased for the feedback condition. In Experiment 3, participants went through a procedure similar to Experiment 1 twice, with two lists of word pairs. Metacognitive accuracy did not improve from List 1 to List 2. Lastly, Experiment 4 used scaffolded feedback to increase metacognitive accuracy. Participants corrected more errors if they could generate the correct response with fewer letter cues. However, relative judgments were not more accurate than the previous experiments. In sum, the current experiments suggest that participants may have a general understanding of the benefits of feedback; however, feedback diminishes prediction accuracy for specific items.

show abstract

Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect

Cited by 333 publications

References 48 publications

Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

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

The Influence of Feedback on Predictions of Future Memory Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About