How do Students Regulate Their Use of Multiple Choice Practice Tests?

Multiple-choice practice tests are beneficial for learning, and students encounter multiple-choice questions regularly. How do students regulate their use of multiple-choice practice testing? And, how effective is students' use of multiple-choice practice testing? In the current experiments, undergraduate participants practiced German-English word pairs. Students started with an initial study trial for each pair. Then, they had the options to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove it from further practice. For comparison to students' use of multiple-choice practice questions, we included a second self-regulated group that had access to cued-recall practice questions. Participants chose to complete multiple-choice questions until they correctly answered each item about one time during practice, similar to students' use of cued-recall questions. We also included experimenter-controlled groups in which participants completed practice tests until they reached a higher number of correct answers during practice. As compared to the experimenter-controlled groups, participants who regulated their use of multiple-choice questions scored lower on final tests but also spent less time practicing items. Thus, when considering final test performance in relation to time spent practicing, students' choices to use multiple-choice practice questions to about one correct answer per item was comparatively effective. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10648-023-09761-1.

Enhancing declarative concept application: The utility of examples as primary targets of learning.

Declarative concepts are abstract concepts denoted by key terms and short definitions that can be applied in a variety of scenarios (e.g., positive reinforcement in psychology; Rawson et al., 2015). One common learning goal for declarative concepts is to instill knowledge that students can use to support the application of content in novel scenarios. Given theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from related literatures, one promising approach for supporting declarative concept application is learning examples. The purpose of the current research was to evaluate the utility of using examples as primary targets of learning for declarative concept application. In two experiments, participants read a textbook passage that included the definition and an example of 10 declarative concepts. Participants then learned the target material by recalling either the definition or the example of each concept. Across both experiments, declarative concept application was greater following practice focused on learning examples versus definitions. Results suggest that using this strategy may be an effective technique for supporting the application of definitions, which are foundational to many introductory courses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

An examination of retrieval practice and production training in the treatment of lexical-semantic comprehension deficits in aphasia.

OBJECTIVE: Little research has addressed the treatment of lexical-semantic comprehension deficits (i.e., difficulty retrieving the meanings of words) in people with aphasia (PWA). Research suggests that practice retrieving names for depicted objects from long-term memory (production-based retrieval practice) more strongly benefits word retrieval for production in PWA compared to errorless learning (i.e., word repetition), which eschews retrieval practice. This study assessed whether production-based and comprehension-based retrieval practice enhance performance on errorful word-comprehension items in PWA measured relative to nonretrieval forms of training and untrained control items. METHOD: In a within-participant group study of PWA, errorful comprehension items were assigned to (a) a production-based training module (retrieval practice vs. errorless learning); (b) a comprehension-based training module (a receptive form of retrieval practice vs. restudy). Each module comprised one training session and a 1-day and 1-week comprehension posttest on the module's trained items and an untrained item set. RESULTS: The comprehension module conditions produced similar and superior posttest performance relative to untrained items. Both production module conditions improved posttest performance relative to untrained items, with retrieval practice conferring more durable learning and generalization indicative of refinement of semantic representations compared to errorless learning. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest comprehension- and production-based forms of training are both beneficial for improving lexical-semantic deficits in aphasia, with production-based retrieval practice conferring additional benefits to the targeted deficit compared to errorless learning. Future studies should examine these learning factors in schedules of training more commensurate with clinical practice and in other neurological populations (e.g., semantic dementia). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Do Students Effectively Regulate Their Use of Self-Testing as a Function of Item Difficulty?

Retrieval practice is beneficial for both easy-to-learn and difficult-to-learn materials, but scant research has examined students' use of self-testing for items of varying difficulty. In two experiments, we investigated whether students differentially regulate their use of self-testing for easy and difficult items and assessed the effectiveness of students' self-regulated choices. Undergraduate participants learned normatively easy and normatively difficult Lithuanian-English word pair translations. After an initial study trial, participants in the self-regulated learning groups chose whether they wanted to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove an item from further practice. Participants chose to test items repeatedly while learning but dropped both easy and difficult items after reaching a criterion of about one correct recall per item. Consequently, final test performance 2 days later was lower for difficult items versus easy items, and performance was lower in the self-regulated learning group than in an experimenter-controlled comparison group (in Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we tested hypotheses for why participants reached a similar number of correct recalls for both easy and difficult items. Three new groups included different scaffolds aimed at minimizing potential barriers to effective regulation. These scaffolds did not change participants' learning choices, and as a result, performance on difficult items was still lower than on easy items. Importantly, participants planned to continue practicing items beyond one correct recall and believed that an optimal student should practice difficult items more than easy items, but they did not execute this plan during the learning task.

Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Skilled Nursing Facility Residents and Staff Members-Los Angeles County, August-September 2020.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of current or past coronavirus disease 2019 in skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents is unknown because of asymptomatic infection and constrained testing capacity early in the pandemic. We conducted a seroprevalence survey to determine a more comprehensive prevalence of past coronavirus disease 2019 in Los Angeles County SNF residents and staff members. METHODS: We recruited participants from 24 facilities; participants were requested to submit a nasopharyngeal swab sample for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and a serum sample for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All participants were cross-referenced with our surveillance database to identify persons with prior positive SARS-CoV-2 results. RESULTS: From 18 August to 24 September 2020, we enrolled 3305 participants (1340 residents and 1965 staff members). Among 856 residents providing serum samples, 362 (42%) had current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 346 serology-positive residents, 199 (58%) did not have a documented prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. Among 1806 staff members providing serum, 454 (25%) had current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 447 serology-positive staff members, 353 (79%) did not have a documented prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. CONCLUSIONS: Past testing practices and policies missed a substantial number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in SNF residents and staff members.

A Review of the Application of Distributed Practice Principles to Naming Treatment in Aphasia.

It is uncontroversial in psychological research that different schedules of practice, which govern the distribution of practice over time, can promote radically different outcomes in terms of gains in performance and the durability of learning. In contrast, in speech-language treatment research, there is a critical need for well-controlled studies examining the impact of the distribution of treatment on efficacy (for reviews, see Cherney, 2012; Warren, Fey, & Yoder, 2007). In this paper, we enumerate key findings from psychological research on learning and memory regarding how different schedules of practice differentially confer durable learning. We review existing studies of aphasia treatment with a focus on naming impairment that have examined how the distribution of practice affects treatment efficacy. We close by discussing potential productive lines of research to elaborate the clinical applicability of distributed practice principles to language treatment.

Effects of distributed practice and criterion level on word retrieval in aphasia.

This study examined how the distribution and amount of practice affect word retrieval in aphasia as well as how such factors relate to the efficiency of learning. The central hypothesis was that factors that enhance the learning of new knowledge also enhance persistent access to existing, but inconsistently available, word representations. The study evaluated the impact of learning principles on word retrieval by manipulating the timing and amount of retrievals for items presented for naming. Nine people with chronic aphasia with naming impairment completed the experiment. Training materials involved proper noun entities assigned to six conditions formed by crossing a 2-level factor of spacing of sessions, i.e., intersession interval (1 day versus 7 days between sessions) with a 3-level factor of number of correct retrievals per item per session, i.e., criterion level (Criterion-1, Criterion-2, and Criterion-4). Each intersession interval condition comprised three training sessions and a one-month retention test. Increasing the criterion level enhanced naming performance after short (1 day, 7 days) and long (one month) retention intervals, but these advantages came at the cost of many additional training trials. In most cases, later naming success was superior when the same number of correct retrievals of an item was distributed across multiple sessions rather than administered within one session. The substantial advantages for across-session spacing were gained at little cost in terms of additional training trials. At one-month retention, naming accuracy was numerically but not significantly higher in the 7-day versus 1-day intersession interval condition. Implications for theories of lexical access and naming treatment in aphasia are discussed.

Retrieval practice and spacing effects in multi-session treatment of naming impairment in aphasia.

Retrieval practice and spacing are two factors shown to enhance learning in basic psychological research. The present study investigated the clinical applicability of these factors to naming treatment in aphasia. Prior studies have shown that naming treatment that provides retrieval practice (i.e., practice retrieving names for objects from semantic memory) improves later naming performance in people with aphasia (PWA) more so than repetition training. Repetition training is a common form of naming treatment that can support errorless production of names for objects, but it does not provide retrieval practice. Prior work has also demonstrated enhanced naming treatment benefit in PWA when an item's training trials are separated by multiple intervening trials (i.e., spacing) compared to only one intervening trial (i.e., massing). However, in those studies, items were only trained in one session. Also, the effects of the learning factors were probed after one day and one week. The goal of the present study was to examine the effects of retrieval practice and spacing in a more clinically-inspired schedule of delivery and to assess the effects of the learning factors at retention intervals of greater functional significance. Matched sets of errorful items for each of four PWA were presented for multiple trials of retrieval practice or repetition in a spaced or massed schedule in each of multiple training sessions. Mixed regression analyses revealed that retrieval practice outperformed repetition, and spacing outperformed massing, at an initial post-treatment test administered after one week. Furthermore, the advantage for retrieval practice over repetition persisted at a follow-up test administered after one month. The potential clinical relevance of retrieval practice and spacing for multi-session interventions in speech-language treatment is discussed.

Why does interleaving improve math learning? The contributions of discriminative contrast and distributed practice.

Interleaved practice involves studying exemplars from different categories in a non-systematic, pseudorandom order under the constraint that no two exemplars from the same category are presented consecutively. Interleaved practice of materials has been shown to enhance test performance compared to blocked practice in which exemplars from the same category are studied together. Why does interleaved practice produce this benefit? We evaluated two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses, the discriminative-contrast hypothesis and the distributed-practice hypothesis, by testing participants' performance on calculating the volume of three-dimensional geometric shapes. In Experiment 1, participants repeatedly practiced calculating the volume of four different-sized shapes according to blocked practice, interleaved practice, or remote-interleaved practice (which involved alternating the practice of volume calculation with non-volume problems, like permutations and fraction addition). Standard interleaving enhanced performance compared to blocked practice but did not produce enhanced performance compared to remote interleaving. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern and extended the results to include a remote-blocked group, which involved blocking volume calculation with non-volume problems. Performance on key measures was better for remote-interleaved groups compared to remote-blocked groups, a finding that supports the distributed-practice hypothesis.

Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement.

Students rely on their notes to memorise and learn critical course content, and recent studies of note-taking state that most students take notes, citing a survey published in 1974. Over the past four decades, classrooms and note-taking technologies have evolved: students can take notes on electronic devices, and some classes are entirely online. Despite these changes, few studies have investigated their impact on note-taking habits. Given that note-taking is critical for student learning, the purpose of the present study was to update the literature on students' general note-taking behaviour and investigate the impact of these newer technological advances on note-taking. We surveyed 577 college students, using questions from prior surveys and new questions relevant to technology. As per prior studies, students still reported taking notes in classrooms, and as important, students reported flexibility in their note-taking by (a) using a notebook or a laptop depending on course demands and (b) often deciding not to take notes in online courses. Thus, students are flexible in their note-taking behaviour, but may not always make the best decisions about how and when to take notes.

Do complex span and content-embedded working memory tasks predict unique variance in inductive reasoning?

Complex span and content-embedded tasks are two kinds of tasks that are designed to measure maintenance and processing in the working memory system. However, a key functional difference between these task types is that complex span tasks require the maintenance of information that is not relevant to the processing task, whereas content-embedded tasks require the maintenance of task-relevant information. The purpose of the present research was to test the hypothesis that more unique variance in inductive reasoning would be explained by content-embedded tasks than by complex span tasks, given that inductive reasoning requires reasoners to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information in order to arrive to a solution. A total of 384 participants completed three complex span tasks, three content-embedded tasks, and three inductive reasoning tasks. The primary structural equation model explained 51% of the variance in inductive reasoning; 45% of the variance in inductive reasoning was uniquely predicted by the content-embedded latent factor, 6% of the variance was predicted by shared variance between the content-embedded and complex span latent factors, and less than 1% was uniquely predicted by the complex span latent factor. These outcomes provide a novel extension to the small but growing literature showing an advantage of using content-embedded rather than complex span tasks for predicting higher-level cognition.

Investigating and explaining the effects of successive relearning on long-term retention.

Research on techniques for enhancing long-term retention has focused almost exclusively on single-session learning conditions. However, even the most potent initial learning manipulations typically do not yield retention levels sufficient for successful performance in many real-world contexts. In contrast, successive relearning (i.e., practicing to some level of mastery in multiple learning sessions) is a promising technique for enhancing long-term retention, but surprisingly few studies have been conducted to date. In two experiments, the advantage of successive relearning over single-session learning (i.e., relearning potency) was substantial, ds = 1.52 to 4.19. Additionally, the effects of initial lag on retention were sizable prior to relearning (ds = 1.07 to 1.87) but attenuated after relearning (ds = -.20 to .38; the extent to which relearning attenuates the effects of initial learning conditions is referred to as relearning override). To evaluate a possible explanation of these effects, we formally tested the relearning attenuatesdecay (RAD) model. The RAD model accurately accounted for relearning potency and relearning override effects (and several other secondary effects). We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of these findings and advocate that successive relearning is an important next frontier for educationally relevant memory research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits.

Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223-239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments (ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1-2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions.

Does mediator use contribute to the spacing effect for cued recall? Critical tests of the mediator hypothesis.

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some - but not all of - the spacing effect on final performance.

Test-potentiated learning: three independent replications, a disconfirmed hypothesis, and an unexpected boundary condition.

Arnold and McDermott [(2013). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940-945] isolated the indirect effects of testing and concluded that encoding is enhanced to a greater extent following more versus fewer practice tests, referred to as test-potentiated learning. The current research provided further evidence for test-potentiated learning and evaluated the covert retrieval hypothesis as an alternative explanation for the observed effect. Learners initially studied foreign language word pairs and then completed either one or five practice tests before restudy occurred. Results of greatest interest concern performance on test trials following restudy for items that were not correctly recalled on the test trials that preceded restudy. Results replicate Arnold and McDermott (2013) by demonstrating that more versus fewer tests potentiate learning when trial time is limited. Results also provide strong evidence against the covert retrieval hypothesis concerning why the effect occurs (i.e., it does not reflect differential covert retrieval during pre-restudy trials). In addition, outcomes indicate that the magnitude of the test-potentiated learning effect decreases as trial length increases, revealing an unexpected boundary condition to test-potentiated learning.

The replicability of the negative testing effect: Differences across participant populations.

Although memory retrieval often enhances subsequent memory, Peterson and Mulligan (2013) reported conditions under which retrieval produces poorer subsequent recall-the negative testing effect. The item-specific-relational account proposes that the effect occurs when retrieval disrupts interitem organizational processing relative to the restudy condition. Rawson et al. (2015), in contrast, failed to replicate the negative testing effect despite repeated high-powered attempts. This article examines the discrepant results, ruling out differences in procedures, and concludes that differences in participant population produced the varying outcome. Specifically, participants from the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Kent State University (KSU) completed the same version of the negative-testing paradigm and were assessed on several measures of cognitive ability (working memory capacity, Raven's progressive matrices, and SAT or ACT score). For the UNC sample, free recall scores and the amount of category clustering (a measure of organizational processing) was greater in the restudy than retrieval condition (i.e., the negative testing effect was found); for the KSU sample, there was no difference on either measure. Furthermore, in the restudy condition, recall and clustering was greater for UNC than KSU students whereas in the retrieval condition, there was no effect of site on either measure. As expected, measures of cognitive ability were greater for the UNC than KSU sample. The results indicate that the negative testing effect is replicable but is subject to limitation related to the participant population. An analysis in terms of the relationship between cognitive ability and memory predicted this pattern of results. (PsycINFO Database Record

The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behaviour.

The study behaviours of students can be assessed from several perspectives, such as what study strategies are used, the total number of hours of study, and the distribution of studying over time. Here, we present the results of a survey study that considered each of these perspectives by asking students to report the what, how much, and when of their study behaviours over the course of a semester. As important, to better understand students' use of study strategies, we also had students report at the beginning of the semester how they intended to study and their beliefs about the effectiveness of a variety of common strategies. Our results indicate that during the semester, students rely on relatively ineffective strategies and mass their studying the day or two before an exam. However, students intended to begin studying earlier and to use a mix of effective and ineffective study habits. Despite their use of some ineffective strategies, they did have a relatively accurate assessment of which strategies were less versus more effective. Taken together, our results suggest that students have some excellent intentions but may falter because massing study the evening before an exam limits their use of more effective study strategies.

Towards a Theory of Learning for Naming Rehabilitation: Retrieval Practice and Spacing Effects.

Purpose: The purpose of this article was to examine how different types of learning experiences affect naming impairment in aphasia. Methods: In 4 people with aphasia with naming impairment, we compared the benefits of naming treatment that emphasized retrieval practice (practice retrieving target names from long-term memory) with errorless learning (repetition training, which preempts retrieval practice) according to different schedules of learning. The design was within subjects. Items were administered for multiple training trials for retrieval practice or repetition in a spaced schedule (an item's trials were separated by multiple unrelated trials) or massed schedule (1 trial intervened between an item's trials). In the spaced condition, we studied 3 magnitudes of spacing to evaluate the impact of effortful retrieval during training on the ultimate benefits conferred by retrieval practice naming treatment. The primary outcome was performance on a retention test of naming after 1 day, with a follow-up test after 1 week. Results: Group analyses revealed that retrieval practice outperformed errorless learning, and spaced learning outperformed massed learning at retention test and at follow-up. Increases in spacing in the retrieval practice condition yielded more robust learning of retrieved information. Conclusion: This study delineates the importance of retrieval practice and spacing for treating naming impairment in aphasia.

Do reading and spelling share a lexicon?

In the reading and spelling literature, an ongoing debate concerns whether reading and spelling share a single orthographic lexicon or rely upon independent lexica. Available evidence tends to support a single lexicon account over an independent lexica account, but evidence is mixed and open to alternative explanation. In the current work, we propose another, largely ignored account--separate-but-shared lexica--according to which reading and spelling have separate orthographic lexica, but information can be shared between them. We report three experiments designed to competitively evaluate these three theoretical accounts. In each experiment, participants learned new words via reading training and/or spelling training. The key manipulation concerned the amount of reading versus spelling practice a given item received. Following training, we assessed both response time and accuracy on final outcome measures of reading and spelling. According to the independent lexica account, final performance in one modality will not be influenced by the level of practice in the other modality. According to the single lexicon account, final performance will depend on the overall amount of practice regardless of modality. According to the separate-but-shared account, final performance will be influenced by the level of practice in both modalities but will benefit more from same-modality practice. Results support the separate-but-shared account, indicating that reading and spelling rely upon separate lexica, but information can be shared between them.