The role of answer familiarity in the multiple-choice testing effect

Manipulations of choice familiarity in multiple-choice testing support a retrieval practice account of the testing effect.

Journal of Educational Psychology ◽

10.1037/a0035715 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 106 (2) ◽

pp. 435-447 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Yoonhee Jang ◽

Hal Pashler ◽

David E. Huber

Keyword(s):

Testing Effect ◽

Retrieval Practice ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Choice Testing

Get full-text (via PubEx)

A Classroom Study on the Role of Prior Knowledge and Retrieval Tool in the Testing Effect

Psychology Learning & Teaching ◽

10.1177/1475725720924872 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 258-274

Author(s):

Andrea P. Francis ◽

Mareike B. Wieth ◽

Kevin L. Zabel ◽

Thomas H. Carr

Keyword(s):

Concept Mapping ◽

Liberal Arts ◽

Testing Effect ◽

Retrieval Practice ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Quasi Experimental ◽

Knowledge Practice ◽

Building Activities ◽

Connection Building

This quasi-experimental study investigated the role of prior psychology knowledge and in-class retrieval activity in the testing effect. Undergraduate introductory psychology students ( N = 53) from two classes at a small liberal arts college practiced retrieving information in class with multiple-choice quizzing and concept mapping. Prior psychology knowledge was measured using a 25-item multiple-choice pretest. Both students with high and low prior psychology knowledge had higher scores on examination material that was practiced in class with retrieval-based concept mapping compared to traditional multiple-choice quizzes and to no organized in-class retrieval activity at all. Only students with high prior psychology knowledge had higher scores on quizzed material compared to no organized in-class retrieval practice, and these scores were lower than those on material that was practiced with in-class concept mapping. In comparison to administering multiple-choice quiz questions, a more useful in-class activity might be to have students, especially those with less prior psychology knowledge, practice retrieving material through free recall and connection building activities such as a concept map.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Learning new word meanings from story reading: the benefit of immediate testing

PeerJ ◽

10.7717/peerj.11693 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. e11693

Author(s):

Rachael C. Hulme ◽

Jennifer M. Rodd

Keyword(s):

Incidental Learning ◽

Testing Effect ◽

Retrieval Practice ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Cued Recall ◽

Intentional Learning ◽

Word Meanings ◽

Story Reading ◽

New Meanings

This study investigated how word meanings can be learned from natural story reading. Three experiments with adult participants compared naturalistic incidental learning with intentional learning of new meanings for familiar words, and examined the role of immediate tests in maintaining memory of new word meanings. In Experiment 1, participants learned new meanings for familiar words through incidental (story reading) and intentional (definition training task) conditions. Memory was tested with cued recall of meanings and multiple-choice meaning-to-word matching immediately and 24 h later. Results for both measures showed higher accuracy for intentional learning, which was also more time efficient than incidental learning. However, there was reasonably good learning from both methods, and items learned incidentally through stories appeared less susceptible to forgetting over 24 h. It was possible that retrieval practice at the immediate test may have aided learning and improved memory of new word meanings 24 h later, especially for the incidental story reading condition. Two preregistered experiments then examined the role of immediate testing in long-term retention of new meanings for familiar words. There was a strong testing effect for word meanings learned through intentional and incidental conditions (Experiment 2), which was non-significantly larger for items learned incidentally through stories. Both cued recall and multiple-choice tests were each individually sufficient to enhance retention compared to having no immediate test (Experiment 3), with a larger learning boost from multiple-choice. This research emphasises (i) the resilience of word meanings learned incidentally through stories and (ii) the key role that testing can play in boosting vocabulary learning from story reading.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Learning new word meanings from story reading: The benefit of immediate testing

10.31234/osf.io/3r4xd ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Rachael Catherine Hulme ◽

Jennifer M Rodd

Keyword(s):

Incidental Learning ◽

Testing Effect ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Cued Recall ◽

Intentional Learning ◽

Word Meanings ◽

Story Reading ◽

New Meanings ◽

Task Conditions

This study investigated how word meanings can be learned from natural story reading. Three experiments compared naturalistic incidental learning with intentional learning of new meanings for familiar words, and examined the role of immediate tests in maintaining memory of new word meanings. In Experiment 1, participants learned new meanings for familiar words through incidental (story reading) and intentional (definition training task) conditions. Memory was tested with cued recall of meanings and multiple-choice meaning-to-word matching immediately and 24 hours later. Results showed that intentional learning was more efficient, but there was reasonably good learning from both methods, and items learned incidentally through stories appeared less susceptible to forgetting over 24 hours. Two preregistered experiments then examined the role of immediate testing in long-term retention of new meanings for familiar words. There was a strong testing effect for word meanings learned through intentional and incidental conditions (Experiment 2), which was non-significantly larger for items learned incidentally through stories. Both cued recall and multiple-choice tests enhanced retention individually (Experiment 3), with better performance for multiple-choice. This research emphasises (i) the resilience of word meanings learned incidentally through stories and (ii) the key role that testing can play in boosting vocabulary learning from story reading.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Using quizzes to improve exam scores

Innovations in Teaching & Learning Conference Proceedings ◽

10.13021/g8g02q ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Patrick McElroy

Keyword(s):

Learning Strategies ◽

Testing Effect ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Long Term Memory ◽

Negative Consequences ◽

Exam Scores ◽

Multiple Choice Exam ◽

Choice Testing ◽

Positive Effect

This session will begin with an overview of the testing effect, i.e., the phenomena of retrieval having a positive effect on long-term memory, the testing effect has been demonstrated in a variety of different classroom settings across a range of disciplines. Multiple studies have found that quizzing generally improves long-term retention, and this effect can be enhanced by different quiz formats. Specifically, fill-in-the-blank quizzes result in higher multiple-choice exam scores than multiple-choice quizzes on the same material (examples include McDaniel, Anderson, Derbish, and Morrissette, 2007; Birenbaum, 2007; and Roediger & Marsh, 2005). We will then report on research we’ve conducted at George Mason University on the effect of an intermediate quiz type – fill-in with word bank. The session will continue with a discussion of possible new directions for the current study. The session will conclude with a discussion of the ways instructors from multiple disciplines can incorporate quizzes into their own classes to help their students retain and recall information more effectively. Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53(6), 749-768. McDaniel, M.A., Anderson, J.L., Derbish, M.H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(405), 494-513. Roediger III, H.L., & Marsh, E.J. (2005). The Positive and Negative Consequences of Multiple-Choice Testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(5), 1155-1159.

Get full-text (via PubEx)