Research has shown that tests can alter the very memories that they aim to evaluate (e.g. Carpenter & DeLosh, 2005; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). Such mnemonic enhancement in long-term retention as a result of testing is referred to as the testing effect (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b for an extensive review; also Delaney, Verkoeijen, & Spirgel, 2010; Pashler, Rohrer, Cepeda, & Carpenter, 2007). Although various hypotheses have been proposed to explain this effect, the exact mechanisms by which testing confers an advantage on memorability remain uncertain (see Delaney et al., 2010; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b, for reviews). Two experiments were carried out to examine whether the mnemonic benefits of testing are due to greater attention being directed to tested items in comparison to restudied items. In Experiment 1 participants in both the restudy and testing conditions studied word pairs either under full attention or while performing a concurrent auditory discrimination task. A final free-recall test was administered under full attention 5 min after the restudy or testing phase. It was predicted that the mnemonic impairment induced by dividing attention would be larger for the testing group than the restudy group. The results showed the interaction of learning condition (restudy vs. testing) and attention (full attention vs. divided attention) was not significant. Experiment 2 adopted the opposite approach: to enhance rather than diminish attention to the to-be-remembered items during the restudy and testing. By manipulating the priority of the concurrent task and memory task, it was assumed that more emphasis on the memory task would draw and boost participants' attention and consequently that the restudy group would benefit more from this attention enhancement than the testing group. The results showed that different emphases did not affect final memory in both restudy and testing groups. Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 together suggest that attention may not play a role in the testing effect.

No description available.

The testing effect refers to the phenomenon that, relative to restudying, being tested on a previously learned material leads to better retention. The present study investigated the hypothesis that part of the testing effect in free recall, can be explained by increased memory organization due to testing. Forty-one participants learned either semantically related or unrelated words. The words were either repeatedly studied six times, or recalled from memory three times and studied three times, with each test trial following a study trial. Following the learning session, all participants conducted two free recall tests, one after five minutes and one after seven days. The study did not replicate the testing effect and therefore no conclusions could be drawn about the hypothesis. The results did, however, indicate that the related material facilitated later retrieval, relative to the unrelated material. Furthermore, opposite to what was predicted, restudying lead to higher rates of category clustering compared to testing.

The testing effect is described as an improvement of memory performance at a final test as a result of previous test sessions. Several studies reported that initial testing during learning provides a better memory representation at a delayed retention interval. The aim of present study is to assess whether an Overt or a Covert retrieval procedure leads to better final recall. Participants were at initial testing instructed to retrieve and write down the words (Overt group), retrieve it without writing down (Covert group) or only restudy the words (SSS group). Memory was tested after[1]15 minutes and again after 1 week. The results indicated a significant main effect of learning group and retrieval interval, where the Overt group performed reliably better than remaining groups. The idea behind the testing effect may work as a guideline of how the testing procedure can be conformed into educational contexts, which advocates for more consistent use of testing in classroom for optimal learning.

The effects of using retrieval as a study method have been found to occur across many contexts, such as in classrooms, with different age groups, and for non-verbal materials (Rohrer & Pashler, 2010). Even though researchers have suggested that this intervention be implemented on a widespread basis, studies to date have not investigated how the important variable of motivation could have an effect on retrieval as a learning intervention. This experiment investigated whether motivational variables would moderate the effect that retrieval has on learning. In this study, retrieval, extrinsic incentives, and intrinsic motivation positively affected performance. Causality orientations did not have an impact on performance or moderate the effect of the incentives. However, none of the included motivational variables moderated the effect of retrieval on learning. These results suggest that retrieval as a learning intervention is equally effective across different motivational conditions. / text

No description available.

No description available.

Repeated testing produces superior recall (especially at a delay) compared to rereading, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. Three studies present evidence for a test question effect that benefits recall of information participants encounter when reading a test. After reading a two-page passage, participants either reread the passage or took fill-in-the-blank practice tests that contained additional information that was later tested. The same procedure was used for a different two-page prose passage as well. A large and unexpected benefit for information read on practice tests was observed. On the 48-hour delayed final test, recall of information reread on practice tests was superior to information reread in prose passages, a finding that is not predicted by current theories of the testing effect. Additionally, recall of information reread on practice tests did not differ significantly from tested information.

Traditional undergraduate biology courses are content intensive, requiring students to understand and remember large amounts of information in short periods of time. Yet most students maintain little of the material encountered during their education. Poor knowledge retention is a main cause of academic failure and high undergraduate attrition rates. Characterizing strategies that support robust learning is critical for ensuring student success. One such strategy is testing effect, the observation that repeated testing can improve the fidelity and durability of retained knowledge more than an equal quantity of restudy. Numerous investigations have described the nature and boundaries of testing effect. Very few, however, have characterized its efficacy in actual classroom practice. The current study investigated whether repeated testing or repeated study affected student retention and understanding of complex biological concepts. The study was conducted in a large (~320 students) introductory biology class. All study conditions and assessments were required components of the course. Student retention of two fundamental molecular biology "big ideas" was targeted; (1) the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and (2) the relationship between gene expression and cell function. Students were randomly assigned to one of three repeated quiz or study conditions. For four weeks, students encountered various combinations of multiple-choice (MC) questions and review material related to big ideas 1&2 and/or unrelated lecture topics. Five weeks after the last quiz, all students completed identical MC final exam questions related to both big ideas. To determine the quality of "understanding" assessed by the MC questions, a subset of students also completed a short answer (SA) test prior to the final exam. Both question formats assessed the same knowledge (2 big ideas) at the same level (comprehension and application). Final exam performance supported the finding that repeated retrieval improves long-term retention of knowledge relative to repeated study. Novel to other previous work conducted at the undergraduate level, the current findings suggest that repeated testing affects student retention and understanding of sophisticated concepts. Careful design and analysis of parallel multiple-choice and short answer questions demonstrated that each can target and elicit similar qualities and types of knowledge.

Team-based testing gives students a chance to earn additional points on individual unit tests by immediately re-taking the test as a team competing against other teams. This instructional approach has enjoyed widening implementation and impressive anecdotal support, but there remains a dearth of empirical studies evaluating its prescribed processes and promoted outcomes. Although the posited effectiveness and appeal of team-based testing seem consistent with the benefits of test-enhanced learning and collaborative learning in general, several limitations are readily apparent. Namely, the current format of the individual and team readiness assurance tests is expressly multiple-choice. Though there are some advantages of this type of question (e.g., ease of administering and grading), the long-term cognitive disadvantage relative to short-answer questions is well documented. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the proposed gain in learning through this format is attributable to the group effect -- be it social or cognitive, or simply to repeated exposure to the test items. Therefore, this study measured the effects of initial test question Format (short-answer vs. multiple-choice), Mode (individual vs. group), and Exposure (once vs. twice) on four delayed measures of learning: Old multiple-choice items (ones students had initially been tested over), Old short-answer items, New multiple-choice items, and New short-answer items. Two weeks after watching a video-recorded lecture, 208 college students took a thirty-item test comprising both the old and new items in multiple-choice and short-answer formats. Results revealed that 1) taking an initial test twice is better than once when the delayed test has old short-answer items or new multiple-choice items, 2) taking an initial short-answer test is better than multiple choice when the delayed test has either old multiple-choice, old short-answer, or new multiple-choice items, and 3) taking an initial team test is no different than taking an individual test when it comes to long-term learning. Particularly noteworthy from these results is how a) the effects of short-answer tests and taking tests twice are not present within Team conditions, and b) taking a multiple-choice test twice is as effective as taking a short-answer test once. Implications are discussed in light of learning theory and instructional practice. / text