Testing effect explained

The testing effect (also known as retrieval practice, active recall, practice testing, or test-enhanced learning)[1] [2] [3] suggests long-term memory is increased when part of the learning period is devoted to retrieving information from memory.[4] It is different from the more general practice effect, defined in the APA Dictionary of Psychology as "any change or improvement that results from practice or repetition of task items or activities."[5]

Cognitive psychologists are working with educators to look at how to take advantage of tests—not as an assessment tool, but as a teaching tool [6] since testing prior knowledge is more beneficial for learning when compared to only reading or passively studying material (even more so when the test is more challenging for memory).[7]

History

Before much experimental evidence had been collected, the utility of testing was already evident to some perceptive observers including Francis Bacon who discussed it as a learning strategy as early as 1620.[8]

"Hence if you read a piece of text through twenty times, you will not learn it by heart so easily as if you read it ten times while attempting to recite it from time to time and consulting the text when your memory fails."
Towards the end of the 17th Century, John Locke made a similar observation regarding the importance of repeated retrieval for retention in his 1689 book "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".
"But concerning the ideas themselves, it is easy to remark, that those that are oftenest refreshed (amongst which are those that are conveyed into the mind by more ways than one) by a frequent return of the objects or actions that produce them, fix themselves best in the memory, and remain clearest and longest there."[9]
Towards the end of the 19th century, Harvard psychologist William James described the testing effect in the following section of his 1890 book "The Principles of Psychology"
"A curious peculiarity of our memory is that things are impressed better by active than by passive repetition. I mean that in learning (by heart, for example), when we almost know the piece, it pays better to wait and recollect by an effort from within, than to look at the book again. If we recover the words in the former way, we shall probably know them the next time; if in the latter way, we shall very likely need the book once more." [10]
The first documented empirical studies on the testing effect were published in 1909 by Edwina E. Abbott [11] [12] which was followed up by research into the transfer and retrieval of prior learning.[13] [14] In his 1932 book Psychology of Study, C. A. Mace said:
"On the matter of sheer repetitive drill there is another principle of the highest importance: Active repetition is very much more effective than passive repetition. ... there are two ways of introducing further repetitions. We may re-read this list: this is passive repetition. We may recall it to mind without reference to the text before forgetting has begun: this is active repetition. It has been found that when acts of reading and acts of recall alternate, i.e., when every reading is followed by an attempt to recall the items, the efficiency of learning and retention is enormously enhanced." [15]
Studies in retrieval practice started in 1987 by John. L Richards, who published his findings in a newspaper in New York. Much of the confusion around early studies could have been due to constrained approaches not accounting for context.[16] In more recent research with contributions from Hal Pashler, Henry Roediger and many others, testing knowledge can produce better learning,[17] [18] [19] transfer,[20] and retrieval [21] results when compared to other forms of study that often use recognition [22] like re-reading [23] or highlighting.[24]

Retrieval practice

In recent research, storage strength (how well an item is learned) and retrieval strength (how well an item can be retrieved)[25] have become separate measures for retrieval practice.[26] Retrieval strength (also known as recall accuracy) is typically higher for restudied words when tested immediately after practice, whereas tested words were higher as time moves on.[27] This suggests using tests is more beneficial for long-term memory and retrieval[28] [29] which some authors believe is due to limited retrieval success during practice[30] supporting the idea that tests are learning opportunities.[31]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging suggests that retrieval practice strengthens subsequent retention of learning through a "dual action" affecting the anterior and posterior hippocampus regions of the brain.[32] This could support findings that individual differences in personality traits or with working memory capacity, don't seem to have any negative impacts of the testing effect,[33] with a greater impact for lower ability individuals.[34]

Despite some doubting knowledge transfer across a topic when testing[35] with some studies showing contradictory evidence[36] suggesting recognition was better than recall,[37] inferential thinking has been supported[38] and the transfer of learning is at its strongest with application of theory to practice, inference questions, medical education,[39] and problems involving medical diagnosis.[40] The transfer can occur across domains, paradigms,[41] and help retention for material not on a final test.[42] Using retrieval practices also produces less forgetting than studying and restudying[43] while helping to identify misconceptions and errors[44] [45] [46] with effects lasting years.[47]

Repeated testing

See main article: Spaced repetition. Repeated testing have shown statistical significance[48] and results getting better than repeated studying[49] [50] which could be due to testing creating multiple retrieval routes for memory,[51] allowing individuals to form lasting connections between items,[52] or blocking information together[53] which can help with memory retention[54] and schema recall.[55] Using spaced repetition has shown an increase on the testing effect[56] [57] with a greater impact with a delay in testing,[58] but the delay could lead to forgetting[59] or retrieval-induced forgetting.

Delaying the test after a session can have a greater impact[60] so studying in the day should be tested in the evening with a delay, but studying in the evening should have an immediate test due the effect sleep has on memory.[61] Despite divided attention being thought to decrease the testing effect, if it is from a different medium it could enhance the effect.

The rate of forgetting is not affected by the speed[62] or degree of learning[63] but by the type of practice involved.

Test difficulty

See main article: desirable difficulty. According to the retrieval effort hypothesis, "difficult but successful retrievals are better for memory than easier successful retrievals" which supports the idea of finding a desirable difficulty within the retrieval practice considering our memory biases. Learning a language was better when using unfamiliar words compared to familiar words, supporting higher difficulty resulting in greater learning.[64] The difficulty relates to the likelihood of forgetting[65] as the harder it is to remember, the more likely you are to remember and retain the information[66] supporting the notion that more effort is required for longer lasting retention[67] similar to the depth of processing at encoding.[68] Therefore, lack of effort from students studying could be a factor that reduces its efficiency.[49]

Increased difficulty shows decreased initial performance but increased performance on harder tests in the future, so retention and transfer suffer less when training is difficult.[53] Even unsuccessful retrieval can enhance learning,[69] as creating the thought helps with retention[70] due to the generation effect.[71] [72] Like with processing time, it is the qualitative nature of the information that determines retention.

Getting feedback helps with learning[73] but finding a desirable difficulty for the test combined with feedback[74] is more beneficial than studying or testing without feedback.[75] [76] The Read, Recite, Review method[77] has been proposed as a method to combine retrieval practice with feedback.[78]

Test format

The test format doesn't seem to impact the results as it is the process of retrieval that aids the learning[79] but transfer-appropriate processing suggests that if the encoding of information is through a format similar to the retrieval format then the test results are likely to be higher, with a mismatch causing lower results.[80] However, when short-answer tests or essays are used [81] [82] greater gains in results are seen when compared to multiple-choice test [83]

Cued recall can make retrieval easier[84] as it reduces the required retrieval strength from an individual which can help short term results,[85] but can hinder long term retrieval overtime due to reduced retrieval demand during practice.[86] Quicker learning can reduce the rate of forgetting for a short period of time, but the effect doesn't last as long as more effortful retrieval.[87] Cueing can be seen when encoding new information overlaps with prior knowledge making retrieval easier[88] [89] or from a visual or auditory aid.

Prior knowledge seems to increase the impact of retrieval practice,[90] but should not be seen as a boundary condition as individuals with higher prior knowledge and individuals with lower prior knowledge both benefit.[91] Pre-testing can be used to get greater results,[92] [93] and the post-testing can be used to facilitate learning and memory of newly studied information, known as the forward testing effect.[94] Pre-test or practice test accuracy doesn't predict post test results as time affects forgetting

Pre-testing effect

The pre-testing effect, also known as errorful generation or pre-questioning, is a related but distinct category where testing material before the material has been learned appears to lead to better subsequent learning performance than would have been the case without the pre-test, provided that feedback is given as to the correct answers once the pre-testing phase is completed or further study is undertaken. Pre-testing has been shown to aid learning in both laboratory. and classroom settings.[95] In terms of specific examples, pre-testing appears to be a beneficial strategy in language learning, science classrooms generally,[96] and specifically with lower ability learners in Chemistry.[97] Pre-testing also seems to be a good way of introducing a lecture series and reduces mind-wandering during lectures.[98] However, while some studies show that it does not seem to be as effective as post testing overall,[99] others show that it is at least as effective as post-testing.[100] The pre-testing effect does appear to be more target focused on the specific material to be learned and should not be seen as correlated with more generalised curiosity.[101] While the strategy has been demonstrated to have learning benefits across different age groups and subject matters, it also appears to be more suited for more concrete material such as learning facts and concepts. It can be used with a variety of materials, including reading passages, videos, and live lectures.[102]

Practice methods

When compared to concept mapping alone, retrieval practice is more beneficial,[103] despite students not seeing retrieval practice as a useful learning tool.[104] When combined, learner performance was increased, suggesting concept mapping is a tool that should be combined with retrieval practice[105] alongside other non-verbal responses.[106] Retrieval helps with mental organization[107] which can work well with concept mapping. Multimedia testing can be used[108] alongside flashcards as a method of retrieval practice but removing cards too early can result in lower long term retention.[109] Individuals may not correctly interpret the outcome of practice cards[110] contributing to dropped cards which impact future retrieval attempts [111] therefore resulting in lower results due to increased forgetting.

It is advised that students,[112] people in care units[113] and teaching professionals[114] [115] [116] use distributed[117] retrieval practice[118] with feedback to aid their studies.[119] Interleaved practice, self-explanation, and elaborative interrogation can be useful but need more research.[120] Summarization can be useful for individuals trained how to use to get the most from it.[121] Keyword mnemonics and imagery for text have been somewhat helpful but the effects are often short lived.[122] However, if each of these methods are integrated with retrieval elements the testing effect is more likely to occur.

Test benefits

A list of benefits of retrieval practice.

Quizzes

A meta-analysis found the following links between frequent low-stakes quizzes in real classes and improved student academic performance:[123]

Transfer of learning

Learning using retrieval practice appears to be one of the most effective methods for promoting transfer of learning. In particular the following three techniques have been identified as particularly beneficial for transfer especially when combined with feedback: i) Implementing broad rather than narrow retrieval exercises ii) Encouraging meaningful explanations of concepts or topics iii) Using a variety of complexity and formats with questions such as retrieval questions that require inference.[124]

Considerations

Complex materials

Some researchers have applied aspects of cognitive load theory to suggest the testing effect may disappear with increasing task difficulty due to increased element interactivity.[125] This has been addressed in the literature with studies that show complex learning is benefitted by retrieval practice.[126] Further research has demonstrated that higher-order retrieval does not need to be based on a lower-level factual recall, and that from the beginning of the learning period, both should be combined for best effect.[127]

Future research

It has been suggested that as most studies on the impact of retrieval practice were conducted in WEIRD countries, this could cause a bias which should be explored in further studies.[128]

Further reading

Notes and References

  1. Roediger. H. L.. Butler. A. C.. 2011. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 15. 1. 20–27. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003. 20951630. free. 10818/24277. 11014168. 2015-08-19. 2017-12-15. https://web.archive.org/web/20171215055319/http://psych.wustl.edu/memory/Roddy%20article%20PDF%27s/Roediger%20%26%20Butler%20%282011%29_TCS.pdf. dead.
  2. Dunlosky. J.. Rawson. K. A.. Marsh. E. J.. Nathan. M. J.. Willingham. D. T.. 2013. Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 14. 1. 4–58. 10.1177/1529100612453266. 26173288. 220053697.
  3. Web site: Remember!. 2016-03-12. Retrieval Practice: A Powerful Strategy to Improve Learning.
  4. Book: E. Bruce Goldstein. Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Cengage Learning. 978-1-133-00912-2. 231. 2010-06-21.
  5. Practice effect . practice-effect . 2021-12-04 .
  6. Bae. Christine L.. Therriault. David J.. Redifer. Jenni L.. 2018. Investigating the testing effect: Retrieval as a characteristic of effective study strategies. Learning and Instruction. 60. 206–214. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.008. 149067724. 0959-4752.
  7. Web site: 9 December 2014. The Testing Effect. Revunote.
  8. Book: Bacon, Francis. The New Organon. CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. 2000. 0-511-01154-7. Jardine. [Place of publication not identified]. 143. Scott.
  9. Book: Locke, John . An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. . Project Gutenberg . 1690 .
  10. Book: James, William. The Principles of Psychology Vol 1. Holt. 1890. New York. Chapter 16 pg 686.
  11. Abbott. Edwina. 1909. On the analysis of the factors of recall in the learning process. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 11. 1. 159–177. 10.1037/h0093018. Ovid.
  12. Book: Larsen. Douglas P.. Test-enhanced learning. Butler. Andrew C.. 2013. In Oxford Textbook of Medical Education. 9780199652679. Walsh, K.. 443–452.
  13. Web site: Experiments as the relative efficiency of men and women in memory & reasoning.. 2021-12-06. psycnet.apa.org. en.
  14. Köhler. Wolfgang. 1943. Review of The Psychology of Human Learning; An Introduction. The American Journal of Psychology. 56. 3. 455–460. 10.2307/1417396. 1417396. 0002-9556.
  15. Book: Mace. C. A.. The Psychology of Study. 1932. R.M. McBride & Co.. New York. 39.
  16. Barnett. Susan M.. Ceci. Stephen J.. 2002. When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin. 128. 4. 612–637. 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612. 0033-2909. 12081085.
  17. Brown. Alan S.. 1976. Review of Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium. The American Journal of Psychology. 89. 2. 357–361. 10.2307/1421430. 1421430. 0002-9556.
  18. Carrier. M.. Pashler. H.. 1992. The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition. 20. 6. 632–642. 10.3758/bf03202713. 1435266. free. 15893469.
  19. Izawa. Chizuko. 1971-05-01. The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. en. 8. 2. 200–224. 10.1016/0022-2496(71)90012-5. 0022-2496.
  20. McDaniel. M. A.. Roediger. H. L.. McDermott. K. B.. 2007. Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 14. 2. 200–206. 10.3758/bf03194052. 17694901. free.
  21. Roediger. Henry L.. Karpicke. Jeffrey D.. September 2006. The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science. en. 1. 3. 181–210. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x. 26151629. 2184171. 1745-6916.
  22. Kanak. N. Jack. Neuner. Sharon D.. 1970. Associative symmetry and item as a function of five methods of paired-associate acquisition.. Journal of Experimental Psychology. en. 86. 2. 288–295. 10.1037/h0029975. 0022-1015.
  23. Karpicke. Jeffrey D.. Butler. Andrew C.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2009. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory (Hove, England). 17. 4. 471–479. 10.1080/09658210802647009. 1464-0686. 19358016. 36234279.
  24. Peterson. Sarah E.. 1991-12-01. The cognitive functions of underlining as a study technique. Reading Research and Instruction. 31. 2. 49–56. 10.1080/19388079209558078. 0886-0246.
  25. Bjork, Robert A., and Elizabeth L. Bjork. "A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation." _From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes_ 2 (1992): 35-67.
  26. Kornell. Nate. Bjork. Robert A.. Garcia. Michael A.. 2011-08-01. Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language. en. 65. 2. 85–97. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002. 0749-596X.
  27. van den Broek. Gesa S. E.. Segers. Eliane. Takashima. Atsuko. Verhoeven. Ludo. 2014-10-03. Do testing effects change over time? Insights from immediate and delayed retrieval speed. Memory. 22. 7. 803–812. 10.1080/09658211.2013.831455. 0965-8211. 23998337. 2066/129864. 23919228. free.
  28. Roediger. H. L.. Karpicke. J. D.. 2006. Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science. 17. 3. 249–255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x. 16507066. 17 August 2015. 16067307. 13 May 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150513043900/http://psych.wustl.edu/memory/Roddy%20article%20PDF%27s/Roediger%20%26%20Karpicke%20%282006%29_PsychSci.pdf. dead.
  29. Toppino. Thomas C.. Cohen. Michael S.. 1 January 2009. The Testing Effect and the Retention Interval. Experimental Psychology. 56. 4. 252–257. 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252. 19439397. 2736571 .
  30. Halamish. Vered. Bjork. Robert A.. 2011. When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 37. 4. 801–812. 10.1.1.1033.8690. 10.1037/a0023219. 21480751.
  31. Foos. Paul W.. Fisher. Ronald P.. 1988. Using tests as learning opportunities.. Journal of Educational Psychology. en. 80. 2. 179–183. 10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.179. 0022-0663.
  32. Wiklund-Hörnqvist. Carola. Stillesjö. Sara. Andersson. Micael. Jonsson. Bert. Nyberg. Lars. January 2021. Retrieval practice facilitates learning by strengthening processing in both the anterior and posterior hippocampus. Brain and Behavior. en. 11. 1. e01909. 10.1002/brb3.1909. 2162-3279. 7821628. 33094555.
  33. Bertilsson. Frida. Stenlund. Tova. Wiklund-Hörnqvist. Carola. Jonsson. Bert. March 2021. Retrieval Practice: Beneficial for All Students or Moderated by Individual Differences?. Psychology Learning & Teaching. en. 20. 1. 21–39. 10.1177/1475725720973494. 229459300. 1475-7257. free.
  34. Agarwal. Pooja K.. Finley. Jason R.. Rose. Nathan S.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2017-07-03. Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity. Memory. en. 25. 6. 764–771. 10.1080/09658211.2016.1220579. 27531308. 3649863. 0965-8211.
  35. McKenzie. Gary R.. 1972-01-01. Some Effects of Frequent Quizzes on Inferential Thinking. American Educational Research Journal. en. 9. 2. 231–240. 10.3102/00028312009002231. 144657297. 0002-8312.
  36. Mulligan. N. W.. Picklesimer. M. 2016. Attention and the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 42. 6. 938–950. 10.1037/xlm0000227. 26618913.
  37. Postman. Leo. Jenkins. William O.. Postman. Dorothy L.. 1948. An Experimental Comparison of Active Recall and Recognition. The American Journal of Psychology. 61. 4. 511–519. 10.2307/1418315. 1418315. 0002-9556.
  38. Butler. A.C.. 2010. Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 36. 5. 1118–1133. 10.1037/a0019902. 20804289.
  39. Dobson. John L.. June 2013. Retrieval practice is an efficient method of enhancing the retention of anatomy and physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education. en. 37. 2. 184–191. 10.1152/advan.00174.2012. 23728136. 16807647 . 1043-4046.
  40. Pan. Steven C.. Rickard. Timothy C.. July 2018. Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis.. Psychological Bulletin. en. 144. 7. 710–756. 10.1037/bul0000151. 29733621. 13682371. 1939-1455. free.
  41. Needham. D. R.. Begg. I. M.. 1991. Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Memory & Cognition. 19. 6. 543–557. 10.3758/bf03197150. 0090-502X. 1758301. 24200377. free.
  42. Chan. Jason C. K.. McDermott. Kathleen B.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2006. Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 135. 4. 553–571. 10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.553. 0096-3445. 17087573.
  43. Toppino. T. C.. Cohen. M. S.. 2009. The testing effect and the retention interval: Questions and answers. Experimental Psychology. 56. 4. 252–257. 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252. 19439397. 2736571 .
  44. Nelson. Adin. 2021-04-02. Additional Benefits of Incorporating Retrieval Practice Into Teaching Rounds. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. en. 13. 2. 293. 10.4300/JGME-D-20-01478.1. 1949-8357. 8054592. 33897968.
  45. Butler. Andrew C.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2008. Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition. 36. 3. 604–616. 10.3758/mc.36.3.604. 0090-502X. 18491500. 14811598. free.
  46. Bangert-Drowns. Robert L.. Kulik. Chen-Lin C.. Kulik. James A.. Morgan. MaryTeresa. 1991-06-01. The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events. Review of Educational Research. en. 61. 2. 213–238. 10.3102/00346543061002213. 146582125. 0034-6543.
  47. Web site: Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing.. 2021-12-07. psycnet.apa.org. en.
  48. Estes. W. K.. 1955. Statistical theory of distributional phenomena in learning. Psychological Review. 62. 5. 369–377. 10.1037/h0046888. 0033-295X. 13254976.
  49. Butler. Andrew C.. 2010. Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 36. 5. 1118–1133. 10.1037/a0019902. 1939-1285. 20804289.
  50. Roediger. H. L.. Karpicke. J. D.. 2006. Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science. 17. 3. 249–255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x. 16507066. 17 August 2015. 16067307. 13 May 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150513043900/http://psych.wustl.edu/memory/Roddy%20article%20PDF%27s/Roediger%20%26%20Karpicke%20%282006%29_PsychSci.pdf. dead.
  51. Martin. E.. 1968. Stimulus meaningfulness and paired-associate transfer: an encoding variability hypothesis. Psychological Review. 75. 5. 421–441. 10.1037/h0026301. 0033-295X. 4879426.
  52. McDaniel. Mark A.. Fisher. Ronald P.. 1991-04-01. Tests and test feedback as learning sources. Contemporary Educational Psychology. en. 16. 2. 192–201. 10.1016/0361-476X(91)90037-L. 0361-476X.
  53. Schneider. Vivian I.. Healy. Alice F.. Bourne. Lyle E.. 2002-02-01. What Is Learned under Difficult Conditions Is Hard to Forget: Contextual Interference Effects in Foreign Vocabulary Acquisition, Retention, and Transfer. Journal of Memory and Language. en. 46. 2. 419–440. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2813. 0749-596X.
  54. Karpicke. J. D.. Blunt. J. R.. 2011. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborate studying with concept of mapping. Science. 331. 6018. 772–775. 10.1126/science.1199327. 21252317. 206530594. free.
  55. Zaromb. Franklin M.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2010-12-01. The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory & Cognition. en. 38. 8. 995–1008. 10.3758/MC.38.8.995. 21156864. 30462402. 1532-5946.
  56. Mulligan. N. W.. Peterson. D. J.. 2015. The negative testing and negative generation effects are eliminated by delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 41. 4. 1014–1025. 10.1037/xlm0000070. 25329076.
  57. Jacoby. Larry L.. 1978-12-01. On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. en. 17. 6. 649–667. 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90393-6. 0022-5371.
  58. Modigliani. Vito. 1976. Effects on a later recall by delaying initial recall.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. en. 2. 5. 609–622. 10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.609. 0096-1515.
  59. Chan. Jason C.K.. 2009. When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language. en. 61. 2. 153–170. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.004.
  60. Karpicke. J. D.. Roediger. H. L.. 2008. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 319. 5865. 966–968. 2008Sci...319..966K. 10.1.1.408.8947. 10.1126/science.1152408. 18276894. 32693.
  61. Kroneisen. Meike. Kuepper-Tetzel. Carolina E.. March 2021. Using Day and Night – Scheduling Retrieval Practice and Sleep. Psychology Learning & Teaching. en. 20. 1. 40–57. 10.1177/1475725720965363. 226345154. 1475-7257.
  62. Web site: Normal forgetting of verbal lists as a function of their degree of learning.. 2021-12-06. content.apa.org. en.
  63. Underwood. Benton J.. 1964-04-01. Degree of learning and the measurement of forgetting. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. en. 3. 2. 112–129. 10.1016/S0022-5371(64)80028-1. 0022-5371.
  64. Battig. William F.. 1961. Review of Meaningfulness and Verbal Learning. The American Journal of Psychology. 74. 4. 656–657. 10.2307/1419690. 1419690. 0002-9556.
  65. Glover. John A.. 1989. The "testing" phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten.. Journal of Educational Psychology. en. 81. 3. 392–399. 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.392. 0022-0663.
  66. Pyc. Mary A.. Rawson. Katherine A.. May 2009. Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory?. Journal of Memory and Language. 60. 4. 437–447. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004. 73651886. 2015-05-15. 2015-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20150518093434/http://www2.kent.edu/CAS/Psychology/resources/cml/upload/Pyc-Rawson-2009-JML-pdf.pdf. dead.
  67. Gardiner. F. M.. Craik. F. I.. Bleasdale. F. A.. 1973. Retrieval difficulty and subsequent recall. Memory & Cognition. 1. 3. 213–216. 10.3758/BF03198098. 0090-502X. 24214547. 38135672. free.
  68. Craik. Fergus I. M.. Tulving. Endel. 1975. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. en. 104. 3. 268–294. 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268. 7896617 . 1939-2222.
  69. Kornell. Nate. Hays. Matthew Jensen. Bjork. Robert A.. 2009. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 35. 4. 989–998. 10.1037/a0015729. 0278-7393. 19586265.
  70. Slamucka. Norman J.. Fevreiski. Jacobo. 1983-04-01. The generation effect when generation fails. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. en. 22. 2. 153–163. 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90112-3. 0022-5371.
  71. Rosner. Zachary A.. Elman. Jeremy A.. Shimamura. Arthur P.. 2013. The generation effect: activating broad neural circuits during memory encoding. Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 49. 7. 1901–1909. 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.09.009. 1973-8102. 3556209. 23079490.
  72. Izawa. Chizuko. 1970. Optimal potentiating effects and forgetting-prevention effects of tests in paired-associate learning.. Journal of Experimental Psychology. en. 83. 2, Pt.1. 340–344. 10.1037/h0028541. 0022-1015.
  73. Rowland. Christopher A.. 2014. The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin. 140. 6. 1432–1463. 10.1037/a0037559. 1939-1455. 25150680. 30042631 .
  74. Kubik. Veit. Gaschler. Robert. Hausman. Hannah. March 2021. PLAT 20(1) 2021: Enhancing Student Learning in Research and Educational Practice: The Power of Retrieval Practice and Feedback. Psychology Learning & Teaching. en. 20. 1. 1–20. 10.1177/1475725720976462. 232170985 . 1475-7257.
  75. Agarwal. etal. 2007. Examining the Testing Effect with Open- and Closed-Book Tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 22. 7. 861–876. 10.1.1.545.4826. 10.1002/acp.1391.
  76. Larsen. Douglas P.. Butler. Andrew C.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2009. Repeated testing improves long-term retention relative to repeated study: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Education. 43. 12. 1174–1181. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518.x. 1365-2923. 19930508. 2446794.
  77. Book: Nilson, Linda B.. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. 2016-07-18. John Wiley & Sons. 978-1-119-09632-0. en.
  78. McDaniel. Mark A.. Howard. Daniel C.. Einstein. Gilles O.. 2009. The read-recite-review study strategy: effective and portable. Psychological Science. 20. 4. 516–522. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02325.x. 1467-9280. 19320858. 8841135.
  79. Yang. Chunliang. Potts. Rosalind. Shanks. David R.. 2018-04-11. Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: a review of the forward testing effect. npj Science of Learning. 3. 1. 8. 10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y. 2056-7936. 6220253. 30631469. 2018npjSL...3....8Y.
  80. Yang. Chunliang. Luo. Liang. Vadillo. Miguel A.. Yu. Rongjun. Shanks. David R.. April 2021. Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review.. Psychological Bulletin. en. 147. 4. 399–435. 10.1037/bul0000309. 33683913. 232158956. 1939-1455.
  81. Roediger. Henry L.. Agarwal. Pooja K.. McDaniel. Mark A.. McDermott. Kathleen B.. 2011. Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. en. 17. 4. 382–395. 10.1037/a0026252. 22082095. 1939-2192.
  82. McDaniel. Mark A.. Anderson. Janis L.. Derbish. Mary H.. Morrisette. Nova. 2007-07-01. Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 19. 4–5. 494–513. 10.1080/09541440701326154. 102343760. 0954-1446.
  83. Agarwal. Pooja K.. Bain. Patrice M.. Chamberlain. Roger W.. 2012-09-01. The Value of Applied Research: Retrieval Practice Improves Classroom Learning and Recommendations from a Teacher, a Principal, and a Scientist. Educational Psychology Review. en. 24. 3. 437–448. 10.1007/s10648-012-9210-2. 143750450. 1573-336X.
  84. Carpenter. Shana K.. Pashler. Harold. Vul. Edward. 2006. What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 13. 5. 826–830. 10.3758/bf03194004. 1069-9384. 17328380. 14721245. free.
  85. Carpenter. Shana K.. DeLosh. Edward L.. 2006. Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition. 34. 2. 268–276. 10.3758/bf03193405. 0090-502X. 16752591. 41086978. free.
  86. Carpenter. S.K.. 2009. Cue Strength as a Moderator of the Testing Effect: The Benefits of Elaborative Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 35. 6. 1563–1569. 10.1037/a0017021. 19857026.
  87. Web site: The psychology of human learning.. 2021-12-06. psycnet.apa.org. en.
  88. Morris. C. Donald. Bransford. John D.. Franks. Jeffery J.. 1977-10-01. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. en. 16. 5. 519–533. 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9. 0022-5371.
  89. Book: Tulving, Endel. Elements of Episodic Memory. 1983. Oxford University Press.
  90. Giebl. Saskia. Mena. Stefany. Storm. Benjamin C.. Bjork. Elizabeth Ligon. Bjork. Robert A.. 2021-03-01. Answer First or Google First? Using the Internet in ways that Enhance, not Impair, One's Subsequent Retention of Needed Information. Psychology Learning & Teaching. en. 20. 1. 58–75. 10.1177/1475725720961593. 226317994. 1475-7257.
  91. Buchin . Zachary L. . Mulligan . Neil W. . 2022-09-22 . Retrieval-based learning and prior knowledge. . Journal of Educational Psychology . en . 10.1037/edu0000773 . 252476327 . 1939-2176.
  92. Rohrer. Doug. Taylor. Kelli. Sholar. Brandon. 2010. Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 36. 1. 233–239. 10.1037/a0017678. 1939-1285. 20053059.
  93. Pan. Steven C.. Sana. Faria. 2021-04-01. Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 27. 2. 237–257. en. 10.1037/xap0000345. 33793291. 232762494. 1939-2192.
  94. Kliegl. Oliver. Bäuml. Karl-Heinz T.. October 2021. When retrieval practice promotes new learning – The critical role of study material. Journal of Memory and Language. en. 120. 104253. 10.1016/j.jml.2021.104253.
  95. Carpenter . Shana K. . Rahman . Shuhebur . Perkins . Kyle . March 2018 . The effects of prequestions on classroom learning. . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied . en . 24 . 1 . 34–42 . 10.1037/xap0000145 . 29595303 . 4465862 . 1939-2192.
  96. Richland . Lindsey E. . Kornell . Nate . Kao . Liche Sean . 2009 . The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied . en . 15 . 3 . 243–257 . 10.1037/a0016496 . 19751074 . 1939-2192.
  97. Pyburn . Daniel T. . Pazicni . Samuel . Benassi . Victor A. . Tappin . Elizabeth M. . 2014-12-09 . The Testing Effect: An Intervention on Behalf of Low-Skilled Comprehenders in General Chemistry . Journal of Chemical Education . en . 91 . 12 . 2045–2057 . 10.1021/ed4009045 . 0021-9584.
  98. Pan . Steven C. . Schmitt . Alexandra G. . Bjork . Elizabeth Ligon . Sana . Faria . December 2020 . Pretesting reduces mind wandering and enhances learning during online lectures. . Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition . en . 9 . 4 . 542–554 . 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.07.004 . 221093237 . 2211-369X.
  99. Latimier . Alice . Riegert . Arnaud . Peyre . Hugo . Ly . Son Thierry . Casati . Roberto . Ramus . Franck . 2019-09-24 . Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing? . npj Science of Learning . en . 4 . 1 . 15 . 10.1038/s41539-019-0053-1 . 31583117 . 6760123 . 2056-7936.
  100. Pan . Steven C. . Sana . Faria . June 2021 . Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice. . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied . en . 27 . 2 . 237–257 . 10.1037/xap0000345 . 33793291 . 232762494 . 1939-2192.
  101. Hollins . Timothy J. . Seabrooke . Tina . Inkster . Angus . Wills . Andy . Mitchell . Chris J. . 2023-02-07 . Pre-testing effects are target-specific and are not driven by a generalised state of curiosity . Memory . en . 31 . 2 . 282–296 . 10.1080/09658211.2022.2153141 . 36475537 . 254432248 . 0965-8211. 10026.1/20003 . free .
  102. Web site: Pan . Steven . Carpenter . Shana . 2023 . Prequestioning and Pretesting Effects: A Review of Empirical Research, Theoretical Perspectives, and Applications . 2023-08-20 . psyarxiv.com.
  103. Web site: A powerful way to improve learning and memory. 2021-12-06. www.apa.org.
  104. Lechuga. M. Teresa. Ortega-Tudela. Juana M.. Gómez-Ariza. Carlos J.. December 2015. Further evidence that concept mapping is not better than repeated retrieval as a tool for learning from texts. Learning and Instruction. en. 40. 61–68. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.08.002.
  105. Blunt. Janell R.. Karpicke. Jeffrey D.. 2014. Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping.. Journal of Educational Psychology. en. 106. 3. 849–858. 10.1037/a0035934. 1939-2176.
  106. Carpenter. Shana K.. Pashler. Harold. 2007. Testing beyond words: using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 14. 3. 474–478. 10.3758/bf03194092. 1069-9384. 17874591. 11660721. free.
  107. Web site: Subjective organization in free recall of "unrelated" words.. 2021-12-07. psycnet.apa.org. en.
  108. Johnson. Cheryl I.. Mayer. Richard E.. 2009. A testing effect with multimedia learning.. Journal of Educational Psychology. en. 101. 3. 621–629. 10.1037/a0015183. 1939-2176.
  109. Roediger. Henry L.. Karpicke. Jeffrey D.. 2006. Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to enhancing long-term retention. 2021-12-07. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 10.1037/e527352012-265.
  110. Web site: How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing.. 2021-12-06. psycnet.apa.org. en.
  111. Karpicke. Jeffrey D.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2007-08-01. Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language. en. 57. 2. 151–162. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004. 0749-596X.
  112. Dunlosky. John. 2013. Strengthening the Student Toolbox: Study Strategies to Boost Learning. American Educator. en. 37. 3. 12–21. 0148-432X.
  113. Cooper. Avraham Z.. Verbeck. Nicole. McCallister. Jennifer W.. Spitzer. Carleen R.. 2020-12-01. Incorporating Retrieval Practice Into Intensive Care Unit Teaching Rounds: A Feasibility Study. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. en. 12. 6. 778–781. 10.4300/JGME-D-20-00082.1. 1949-8357. 7771589. 33391605.
  114. McDaniel. Mark A.. Agarwal. Pooja K.. Huelser. Barbie J.. McDermott. Kathleen B.. Roediger. Henry L.. 2011. Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement.. Journal of Educational Psychology. en. 103. 2. 399–414. 10.1037/a0021782. 1939-2176.
  115. Book: Agarwal. Pooja K.. Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning. Bain. Patrice M.. 2019-06-05. John Wiley & Sons. 978-1-119-52184-6. en.
  116. Book: Jones, Kate. Retrieval Practice: Research & Resources for every classroom. 2020-07-27. John Catt Educational. 978-1-913808-06-8. en.
  117. McCabe. Jennifer. 2011. Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition. 39. 3. 462–476. 10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2. 1532-5946. 21264604. 1682524. free.
  118. Gurung, R.A., 2005. How do students really study (and does it matter). Education, 39, pp.323-340.
  119. Augustin. Marc. 2014. How to learn effectively in medical school: test yourself, learn actively, and repeat in intervals. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 87. 2. 207–212. 1551-4056. 4031794. 24910566.
  120. Endowment Foundation. Education. Cognitive Science Approaches in the Classroom. Education Endowment Foundation Website. 15–48. Education Endowment Foundation.
  121. Rinehart. Steven D.. Stahl. Steven A.. Erickson. Lawrence G.. 1986. Some Effects of Summarization Training on Reading and Studying. Reading Research Quarterly. 21. 4. 422–438. 10.2307/747614. 747614. 0034-0553.
  122. Wang. Alvin Y.. Thomas. Margaret H.. Ouellette. Judith A.. 1992. Keyword mnemonic and retention of second-language vocabulary words.. Journal of Educational Psychology. en. 84. 4. 520–528. 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.520. 1939-2176.
  123. Sotola. Lukas K.. Crede. Marcus. June 2021. Regarding Class Quizzes: a Meta-analytic Synthesis of Studies on the Relationship Between Frequent Low-Stakes Testing and Class Performance. Educational Psychology Review. en. 33. 2. 407–426. 10.1007/s10648-020-09563-9. 1040-726X. 225447986.
  124. Pan. Steven. Agarwal. Pooja. Retrieval Practice And Transfer Of Learning Fostering Students' Application Of Knowledge. Retrieval Practice Org. 5. UC San Diego.
  125. van Gog. Tamara. Sweller. John. 2015-06-01. Not New, but Nearly Forgotten: the Testing Effect Decreases or even Disappears as the Complexity of Learning Materials Increases. Educational Psychology Review. en. 27. 2. 247–264. 10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x. 1573-336X. free. 1765/92178. 145345472.
  126. Karpicke. Jeffrey D.. Aue. William R.. June 2015. The Testing Effect Is Alive and Well with Complex Materials. Educational Psychology Review. en. 27. 2. 317–326. 10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3. 34064308. 1040-726X.
  127. Agarwal . Pooja K. . February 2019 . Retrieval practice & Bloom's taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? . Journal of Educational Psychology . en . 111 . 2 . 189–209 . 10.1037/edu0000282 . 91176973 . 1939-2176. free .
  128. Agarwal. Pooja K.. Nunes. Ludmila D.. Blunt. Janell R.. 2021-03-14. Retrieval Practice Consistently Benefits Student Learning: a Systematic Review of Applied Research in Schools and Classrooms. Educational Psychology Review. 33. 4. 1409–1453. en. 10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9. 235079733. 1040-726X.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Testing effect".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.