Forward testing effect

Last updated

The forward testing effect, also known as test potentiated new learning, is a psychological learning theory which suggests that testing old information can improve learning of new information. [1] Unlike traditional learning theories in educational psychology which have established the positive effect testing has when later attempting to retrieve the same information, the forward testing effect instead suggests that the testing experience itself possesses unique benefits which enhance the learning of new information. [2] This memory effect is also distinct from the 'practice effect' which typically refers to an observed improvement which results from repetition and restudy, as the testing itself is considered as the catalyst for improved recall. [3] Instead, this theory suggests that testing serves not only as a tool for assessment but as a learning tool which can aid in memory recall. The forward testing effect indicates that educators should encourage students to study using testing techniques rather than restudying information repeatedly. [2]

Contents

The forward testing effect has received significant coverage across the scientific community, especially over the last decade, due to the increasing focus on new memory techniques to guide learning strategies and improve student learning. [1] Since this phenomenon has been established in psychological literature, the focus has shifted to attempting to provide an account for the forward testing effect, with three predominant explanations rising to the forefront of psychological debate; the context change account, elaborative retrieval account and the episodic context account for the forward testing effect. [4]

Empirical evidence

Word recall

Experimental design for Chan, Manley, Davis and Szpunar's (2018) experiment. Experimental design for the three experiments.png
Experimental design for Chan, Manley, Davis and Szpunar's (2018) experiment.

The earliest documented study to observe the forward testing effect was conducted in 1974 by Tulving and Watkins. [5] They observed that testing of one list of words enhanced recall of another, different list. At this point in time, the forward testing effect had not yet been theorised, hence they were quite puzzled with their discovery which sparked further research by other psychologists. Further studies involving word pairs conducted by Szpunar, McDermott and Roediger in 2008 reported similar findings that participants who were tested on one word list performed significantly better in a recall task for a completely different list, relative to those who only restudied the first list or performed a filler task. [6] These findings were also replicated by Wahlheim who used a similar methodology in 2015, observing a strong forward testing effect. [7]

The most recent word-based experiment which confirmed these findings was conducted by Chan, Manley, Davis and Szpunar in 2018. They specifically investigated whether the forward testing effect persisted across different time delays. In their experiment, three word lists were studied by participants. There were three groups; the participants either restudied these words, completed math problems or were tested on the words. Participants were then given a fourth word list and completed a free recall test. They found that those who had been tested on Lists 1-3 had better recall for List 4 across varying time delays. Overall these studies provided strong evidence to suggest that integrated testing of word-lists not only aided recall of the same word list but boosted later learning, hence providing evidence for the forward testing effect. [1]

Visual recall

Several studies have been conducted on the forward testing effect for students watching video lectures. In 2013, Szpunar, Khan and Schacter, conducted a study involving video lectures. [8] They found that students who watched lectures which included interpolated testing aided new learning, scoring higher on a final cumulative quiz. In addition, these students were observed to have reduced mind-wandering and more content-relevant thoughts throughout the lecture. Another study conducted by Jing, Szpunar and Schacter in 2016 found that participants who were tested throughout a video lecture performed far better on a cumulative test at the end of the lecture than those who weren't tested. [9]

These experiments demonstrated the benefits of testing in a more ecologically valid setting, suggesting that university professors should consider implementing testing within their lectures through electronic testing programs such as Kahoot and Mentimeter. [9]

Theoretical accounts

There are three theoretical accounts which attempt to explain the forward testing effect; the context change account, elaborative retrieval account and, more recently, the episodic context account.

Context change account

The context change account suggests that The forward testing effect can be attributed to the change in context as the learner switches from encoding information to retrieval during testing. This account draws from the considerable evidence in favour of the existence of proactive interference as a part of interference theory, primarily from a study conducted by Jang and Huber in 2008. [10] This study found that proactive interference occurs when the learner's ability to encode new information is inhibited by previous learning due to an extended study period. Testing of old learning provides a release from proactive interference by switching the focus of the learner's cognitive activity from memory encoding to retrieval. This release from proactive interference subsequently aids the learner who performs better in the final recall task. [10]

However, this account has been criticised as it is considered limited in its ability to explain the forward testing effect since it implies that testing is no different from taking a study break; as long as a context change is enacted, testing has no unique benefits to learning. However, all of the aforementioned studies have demonstrated that participants who are given a 'filler task', which provides a break from encoding, do not experience the forward testing effect. This limits the validity of this account as a way to explain the forward testing effect and hence it is often disregarded. [11]

Elaborative retrieval account

The elaborative retrieval account suggests that the encoding of semantic cues through testing is responsible for the forward testing effect. This account is the most frequently cited when referring to the forward testing effect as several studies have supported the concept of semantic cues as a tool to aid memory recall. [11] In Chan, Manley, Davis and Szpunar study conducted in 2018, they not only found evidence for the forward testing effect across time delays but they also found strong semantic organisation among participants who experienced this effect. They subsequently concluded that these participants' enhanced performance could be attributed to their use of semantic memory cues and organisation strategies which were encoded throughout testing and retrieved when they completed the final recall task. [1]

Further evidence for this account can be found in Wissman, Rawson and Pyc's 2011 study. In their experiment, participants attempted to learn a long expository text and recall as much of it as possible in a final recall task. When learning this text, participants either restudied the text, completed an interim test on it or participated in a filler task. These researchers not only found a forward testing effect but were able to use clustering analyses to attribute this effect to the participants' shift to more effective encoding strategies throughout interpolated tests which were later used to enhance performance in the final recall task. Therefore, they were able to infer that the use of semantic encoding strategies was the primary cause of the forward testing effect for learners. [12]

Episodic context account

The episodic context account for the forward testing effect is one of the newest theories which attempts to explain this phenomenon. The episodic context theory consists of four main assumptions: [4]

  1. People encode contextual and temporal details when encoding information.
  2. During retrieval, people reinstate, consciously or otherwise, temporal and contextual details.
  3. When episodic context (temporal and contextual details) is reinstated and people update their context representations with their current contextual setting.
  4. When later reinstating episodic context details again, the updated context representations aid recall of the previously learned items.

However, up until recent times, this account has not been applied to the forward testing effect. The primary study which supports this account was conducted by Whiffen and Karpicke in 2017. [4] In their study, participants were given word lists and then either restudied them, completed math problems as a filler task or were tested on the word lists. They found that the testing condition performed best, indicating a Testing Effect but not a forward testing effect. However, interestingly, they also found that participants in the testing condition utilised temporal organisation strategies rather than semantic encoding strategies. They subsequently hypothesised that this theory could be extrapolated to the forward testing effect such that it could be theorised that participants who are tested develop context representations which aid the learning of new information. However, at this point, further research into the episodic context account is required in order to reject the popular and well-established elaborative retrieval account. [4]

Criticisms

Several criticisms have been leveled at the validity of the forward testing effect by psychologists who have conducted research and found contradictory results. One such case of this was an experiment conducted by Finn and Roediger in 2013 in which participants learned two pieces of associated information and were then given a third associated piece of information to learn. These pieces of information were the face and name of a person and then in the third phase, their profession. There were two learning conditions; one group restudied the face-name pair before learning their profession and another group was tested on them. While the forward testing effect theorises that the testing condition would perform significantly better in the free recall task for the profession (new information), this was not the case. Instead, these researchers found that testing of the face-name pair had a detrimental effect on learning the profession. In essence, testing of old information had a negative impact on learning new information, rather than the positive effect predicted by the forward testing effect. [13]

These findings prompted another study to be conducted by Chan and Davis in 2015 which aimed to explain these findings which undermined the validity of the forward testing effect. In this study, they present the 'borrowed time hypothesis' which they attribute to the contradictory findings of Finn and Roediger. This hypothesis argues that the forward testing effect is valid but only in cases when participants don't 'borrow time', which these researchers argue occurs when new learning is intermixed with testing. In their experiment, Chan and Davis either encouraged or discouraged 'time borrowing' and found evidence for their hypothesis. This indicates that while the criticisms presented by Finn and Roediger's study are valid, the forward testing effect itself remains a valid theory but with the limitations discovered in Chan and Davis' study. [14]

Related Research Articles

Long-term memory (LTM) is the stage of the Atkinson–Shiffrin memory model in which informative knowledge is held indefinitely. It is defined in contrast to sensory memory, the initial stage, and short-term or working memory, the second stage, which persists for about 18 to 30 seconds. LTM is grouped into two categories known as explicit memory and implicit memory. Explicit memory is broken down into episodic and semantic memory, while implicit memory includes procedural memory and emotional conditioning.

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. Psychologists test these forms of recall as a way to study the memory processes of humans and animals. Two main theories of the process of recall are the two-stage theory and the theory of encoding specificity.

Source amnesia is the inability to remember where, when or how previously learned information has been acquired, while retaining the factual knowledge. This branch of amnesia is associated with the malfunctioning of one's explicit memory. It is likely that the disconnect between having the knowledge and remembering the context in which the knowledge was acquired is due to a dissociation between semantic and episodic memory – an individual retains the semantic knowledge, but lacks the episodic knowledge to indicate the context in which the knowledge was gained.

The interference theory is a theory regarding human memory. Interference occurs in learning. The notion is that memories encoded in long-term memory (LTM) are forgotten and cannot be retrieved into short-term memory (STM) because either memory could interfere with the other. There is an immense number of encoded memories within the storage of LTM. The challenge for memory retrieval is recalling the specific memory and working in the temporary workspace provided in STM. Retaining information regarding the relevant time of encoding memories into LTM influences interference strength. There are two types of interference effects: proactive and retroactive interference.

The Decay theory is a theory that proposes that memory fades due to the mere passage of time. Information is therefore less available for later retrieval as time passes and memory, as well as memory strength, wears away. When an individual learns something new, a neurochemical "memory trace" is created. However, over time this trace slowly disintegrates. Actively rehearsing information is believed to be a major factor counteracting this temporal decline. It is widely believed that neurons die off gradually as we age, yet some older memories can be stronger than most recent memories. Thus, decay theory mostly affects the short-term memory system, meaning that older memories are often more resistant to shocks or physical attacks on the brain. It is also thought that the passage of time alone cannot cause forgetting, and that decay theory must also take into account some processes that occur as more time passes.

The spacing effect demonstrates that learning is more effective when study sessions are spaced out. This effect shows that more information is encoded into long-term memory by spaced study sessions, also known as spaced repetition or spaced presentation, than by massed presentation ("cramming").

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Testing effect</span> Memory effect in educational psychology

The testing effect suggests long-term memory is increased when part of the learning period is devoted to retrieving information from memory. 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."

Serial-position effect is the tendency of a person to recall the first and last items in a series best, and the middle items worst. The term was coined by Hermann Ebbinghaus through studies he performed on himself, and refers to the finding that recall accuracy varies as a function of an item's position within a study list. When asked to recall a list of items in any order, people tend to begin recall with the end of the list, recalling those items best. Among earlier list items, the first few items are recalled more frequently than the middle items.

The Levels of Processing model, created by Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972, describes memory recall of stimuli as a function of the depth of mental processing. More analysis produce more elaborate and stronger memory than lower levels of processing. Depth of processing falls on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid decay. Conversely, deep processing results in a more durable memory trace. There are three levels of processing in this model. Structural processing, or visual, is when we remember only the physical quality of the word. Phonemic processing includes remembering the word by the way it sounds. Lastly, we have semantic processing in which we encode the meaning of the word with another word that is similar or has similar meaning. Once the word is perceived, the brain allows for a deeper processing.

Memory has the ability to encode, store and recall information. Memories give an organism the capability to learn and adapt from previous experiences as well as build relationships. Encoding allows a perceived item of use or interest to be converted into a construct that can be stored within the brain and recalled later from long-term memory. Working memory stores information for immediate use or manipulation, which is aided through hooking onto previously archived items already present in the long-term memory of an individual.

In psychology, memory inhibition is the ability not to remember irrelevant information. The scientific concept of memory inhibition should not be confused with everyday uses of the word "inhibition". Scientifically speaking, memory inhibition is a type of cognitive inhibition, which is the stopping or overriding of a mental process, in whole or in part, with or without intention.

The generation effect is a phenomenon whereby information is better remembered if it is generated from one's own mind rather than simply read. Researchers have struggled to fully explain why generated information is better recalled than read information, as no single explanation has been comprehensive.

In psychology, context-dependent memory is the improved recall of specific episodes or information when the context present at encoding and retrieval are the same. In a simpler manner, "when events are represented in memory, contextual information is stored along with memory targets; the context can therefore cue memories containing that contextual information". One particularly common example of context-dependence at work occurs when an individual has lost an item in an unknown location. Typically, people try to systematically "retrace their steps" to determine all of the possible places where the item might be located. Based on the role that context plays in determining recall, it is not at all surprising that individuals often quite easily discover the lost item upon returning to the correct context. This concept is heavily related to the encoding specificity principle.

There is evidence suggesting that different processes are involved in remembering something versus knowing whether it is familiar. It appears that "remembering" and "knowing" represent relatively different characteristics of memory as well as reflect different ways of using memory.

In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval. Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.

The encoding specificity principle is the general principle that matching the encoding contexts of information at recall assists in the retrieval of episodic memories. It provides a framework for understanding how the conditions present while encoding information relate to memory and recall of that information.

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is a memory phenomenon where remembering causes forgetting of other information in memory. The phenomenon was first demonstrated in 1994, although the concept of RIF has been previously discussed in the context of retrieval inhibition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bilingual memory</span>

Bilingualism is the regular use of two fluent languages, and bilinguals are those individuals who need and use two languages in their everyday lives. A person's bilingual memories are heavily dependent on the person's fluency, the age the second language was acquired, and high language proficiency to both languages. High proficiency provides mental flexibility across all domains of thought and forces them to adopt strategies that accelerate cognitive development. People who are bilingual integrate and organize the information of two languages, which creates advantages in terms of many cognitive abilities, such as intelligence, creativity, analogical reasoning, classification skills, problem solving, learning strategies, and thinking flexibility.

Incidental memory is defined as the ability to acquire and recall information that was unintentionally encoded and stored. It describes how memory formation occurs incidentally as a byproduct of engaging in other activities without conscious and deliberate efforts to remember and meaningfully process the information.

Kathleen McDermott is Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. She is known for her research on how human memory is encoded and retrieved, with a specific interest in how false memories develop. In collaboration with Henry L. (Roddy) Roediger III, she developed the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm used to study the phenomenon of memory illusions. McDermott received the 2004-2005 F.J. McGuigan Young Investigator Prize for research on memory from the American Psychological Foundation and the American Psychological Association's Science Directorate. She was recognized by the Association for Psychological Science as a Rising Star in 2007. McDermott is a Fellow of the Psychonomic Society and was honored with a 2019 Psychonomic Society Mid-Career Award.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Chan, J. C., Manley, K. D., Davis, S. D., & Szpunar, K. K. (2018). Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval and a lag: A strategy change perspective. Journal of Memory and Language,102, 83-96. doi : 10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.007
  2. 1 2 Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi : 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
  3. ↑ "Practice effect". APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. n.d. Retrieved 2019-05-14.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  4. 1 2 3 4 Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2017). The role of episodic context in retrieval practice effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1036–1046. doi : 10.1037/xlm0000379
  5. ↑ Tulving, E., & Watkins, M. J. (1974). On negative transfer: Effects of testing one list on the recall of another. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 181–193.
  6. ↑ Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1392–1399. doi : 10.1037/a0013082.
  7. ↑ Wahlheim, C. N. (2015). Testing can counteract proactive interference by integrating competing information. Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 27–38. doi : 10.3758/s13421-014-0455-5
  8. ↑ Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6313–6317. doi : 10.1073/pnas.1221764110
  9. 1 2 Jing, H. G., Szpunar, K. K., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Interpolated testing influences focused attention and improves integration of information during a video-recorded lecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 305–318. doi : 10.1037/xap0000087
  10. 1 2 Jang, Yoonhee; Huber, David E. (2008). "Context retrieval and context change in free recall: Recalling from long-term memory drives list isolation". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 34 (1). American Psychological Association (APA): 112–127. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.112. ISSN   1939-1285. PMID   18194058.
  11. 1 2 Pyc, Mary A.; Rawson, Katherine A. (2010-10-15). "Why Testing Improves Memory: Mediator Effectiveness Hypothesis". Science. 330 (6002). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 335. Bibcode:2010Sci...330..335P. doi:10.1126/science.1191465. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   20947756. S2CID   19431054.
  12. ↑ Wissman K. T., Rawson K. A., Pyc M. A. (2011). The interim test effect: testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 1140–1147 10.3758/s13423-011-0140-7
  13. ↑ Finn, B., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2013). Interfering effects of retrieval in learning new information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1665-1681. doi : 10.1037/a0032377
  14. ↑ Davis, S. D., & Chan, J. C. (2015). Studying on borrowed time: How does testing impair new learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,41(6), 1741-1754. doi : 10.1037/xlm0000126
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.