Collaborative Retrieval Practice Reduces Mind-Wandering During Learning.

Research has shown engaging in retrieval practice can reduce the frequency of mind-wandering. However, no prior research has examined how engaging in collaborative (as compared to individual) retrieval practice impacts mind-wandering during learning. In the current experiment, participants were asked to study a list of words, followed by retrieval practice that either occurred collaboratively (as a dyad) or individually. During retrieval practice, participants provided self-reports as to whether they were on task or off task. Following retrieval practice, all participants completed an individual final test. Of greatest interest, the results showed that engaging in collaborative retrieval practice decreased the frequency of mind-wandering during learning. In addition, and consistent with prior collaborative learning research, collaborative inhibition during practice and postcollaborative benefits on the final test were observed. The current results provide the first demonstration of an additional benefit to using collaborative retrieval practice: This technique reduces the frequency of mind-wandering.

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).

Using tests to reduce mind-wandering during learning review.

Research suggests testing improves the retention of previously learned information. Here, we examined whether this might be due (in part) to the fact that tests help learners stay on task during the review stages of learning. In two experiments, participants encoded a list of words and later had an opportunity to review the material via a free recall test or re-reading the words. During review, participants provided self-reports as to whether their minds were on or off task. Results from both experiments show testing decreased mind-wandering. Importantly, this reduction in mind-wandering was associated with improved performance on a final memory test. These results suggest the mnemonic benefits associated with testing may stem not only from act of retrieval itself, but also from the fact that taking tests encourages a more efficient and engaged review of the material.

The testing effect and analogical problem-solving.

Researchers generally agree that retrieval practice of previously learned material facilitates subsequent recall of same material, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. There is debate, however, about when such benefits transfer to related (though not identical) material. The current study examines the phenomenon of transfer in the domain of analogical problem-solving. In Experiments 1 and 2, learners were presented a source text describing a problem and solution to read which was subsequently either restudied or recalled. Following a short (Experiment 1) or long (Experiment 2) delay, learners were given a new target text and asked to solve a problem. The two texts shared a common structure such that the provided solution for the source text could be applied to solve the problem in the target text. In a combined analysis of both experiments, learners in the retrieval practice condition were more successful at solving the problem than those in the restudy condition. Experiment 3 explored the degree to which retrieval practice promotes cued versus spontaneous transfer by manipulating whether participants were provided with an explicit hint that the source and target texts were related. Results revealed no effect of retrieval practice.

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

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.

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.

How do students implement collaborative testing in real-world contexts?

Recent research has explored the effects of collaborative testing, showing costs and benefits during learning and for subsequent memory. However, no prior research is informative about whether and how students use collaborative testing in real-world contexts. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current research was to explore the extent to which students use collaborative testing during self-regulated learning. We conducted three surveys (n = 692 across three samples) asking students about their use of collaborative testing, with a particular interest in conditions under which students report implementing collaborative testing. Among the key outcomes, a majority of students reported using collaborative testing when studying in a group. Additionally, students reported that key term definitions are the material most often used during collaborative testing. Students are also more motivated to use testing and believe testing is more effective and more fun when implemented in a group versus alone. Outcomes also shed light on metacognitive components of collaborative testing, with the student asking (versus answering) the question making the monitoring judgement whereas both students make the control decision about when to terminate practice. We discuss ways in which the collaborative memory literature can be extended to support more successful student learning.

Does testing impair relational processing? Failed attempts to replicate the negative testing effect.

Recent research on testing effects (i.e., practice tests are more effective than restudy for enhancing subsequent memory) has focused on explaining when and why testing enhances memory. Of particular interest for present purposes, Zaromb and Roediger (2010) reported evidence that testing effects in part reflect enhanced relational processing, which refers to the encoding of similarity among to-be-learned items. The multifactor account of testing effects (Peterson & Mulligan, 2013) further distinguishes between processing of cue-target relations (intraitem relational processing) and processing of relations shared by targets from different items (interitem relational processing). The intriguing claim of this account is that testing enhances intraitem relational processing at the expense of interitem relational processing. Confirming predictions of this account, Peterson and Mulligan (2013) found negative testing effects on final free recall and on a measure of interitem relational processing (the same measures on which Zaromb and Roediger found positive testing effects). The original intent of the current research was to resolve this theoretical debate by replicating and extending the findings of Peterson and Mulligan (2013) to identify the locus of the apparent inconsistency in the outcomes reported in these 2 studies. However, 5 high-powered experiments affording 8 comparisons of testing versus restudy did not replicate the negative testing effect on final memory performance nor on most measures of interitem relational processing. Thus, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that testing does not impair relational processing.

Grain size of recall practice for lengthy text material: fragile and mysterious effects on memory.

The current research evaluated the extent to which the grain size of recall practice for lengthy text material affects recall during practice and subsequent memory. The grain size hypothesis states that a smaller vs. larger grain size will increase retrieval success during practice that in turn will enhance subsequent memory for lengthy text material. Participants were prompted to recall directly after studying each section (section recall) or after all sections had been studied (whole-text recall) during practice, and then all participants completed a final test after a delay. Results across 7 experiments (including 587 participants and 1,394 recall protocols) partially disconfirmed the predictions of the grain size hypothesis: Although the smaller grain size produced sizable recall advantages during practice as expected (ds from 1.02 to 1.87 across experiments), the advantage was substantially or completely attenuated across a delay. Experiments 2-7 falsified several plausible methodological and theoretical explanations for the fragility of the effect, indicating that it was not due to particular text materials, retrieval from working memory during practice, the length of the retention interval, the spacing between study and practice recall, a disproportionate increase in recall of unimportant details, or a deficit in integration of ideas across text sections. In sum, results conclusively establish an initially sizable but mysteriously fragile effect of grain size, for which an explanation remains elusive.

How and when do students use flashcards?

Previous survey research has documented students' use of self-regulated study strategies, with a particular interest in self-testing. These surveys indicate that students frequently use flashcards to self-test and that self-testing is primarily used as a way to monitor learning. Whereas previous surveys provide information about whether and why students self-test, they provide minimal information about how and when students choose to self-test. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current survey was to explore how and when students engage in self-testing. We surveyed 374 undergraduates about the amount of practice and the timing of practice, two factors that strongly affect the efficacy of self-testing. Results indicate that students understand the benefits of practising to higher criterion levels (amount of practice) but do not typically implement or understand the benefits of practising with longer lags (timing of practice). We discuss practical implications for supporting more successful student learning.

The interim test effect: testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material.

A wealth of prior research has shown that testing can improve subsequent learning of the initially tested material. In contrast, only one recent study has shown that an interim test over prior material can improve learning of subsequent new material (i.e., an interim-test effect). Five experiments replicated and extended this initial work by exploring the extent to which interim test effects generalize to complex text material. Participants were prompted to recall each section of an expository text before moving on to study the next section, or were only prompted to recall after the final section. In all experiments, recall of the final, target section was greater when prior sections had received interim tests versus no interim tests. Experiment 3 established that the effect was due to interim testing in particular rather than to intervening activity in general. Experiment 4 established that the effect was not due to test expectancy differences. In contrast to prior research, Experiment 4 also provided evidence that the effect is not due to release from proactive interference. We discuss other possible mechanisms underlying interim-test effects with text, including shifting to more effective encoding strategies.