scholarly journals Sans Forgetica is Not the “Font” of Knowledge: Disfluent Fonts are Not Always Desirable Difficulties

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824402110566
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Wetzler ◽  
Aryn A. Pyke ◽  
Adam Werner
Keyword(s):  
Testing Effect ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Target Material ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Relational Processing ◽  
Desirable Difficulties ◽  
Extra Effort ◽  
Self Testing ◽  
Retention Intervals ◽  
Processing Effort

Subsequent recall is improved if students try to recall target material during study (self-testing) versus simply re-reading it. This effect is consistent with the notion of “desirable difficulties.” If the learning experience involves difficulties that induce extra effort, then retention may be improved. Not all difficulties are desirable, however. Difficult-to-read ( disfluent) typefaces yield inconsistent results. A new disfluent font, Sans Forgetica, was developed and alleged to promote deeper processing and improve learning. Although it would be invaluable if changing the font could enhance learning, the few studies on Sans Forgetica have been inconsistent, and focused on short retention intervals (0–5 minutes). We investigated a 1-week interval to increase practical relevance and because some benefits only manifest after a delay. A testing-effect manipulation was also included. Students ( N = 120) learned two passages via different methods (study then re-study vs. study then self-test). Half the students saw the passages in Times New Roman and half in Sans Forgetica. Recall test scores were higher for passages learned via self-testing than restudying, but the effect of font and the interaction were nonsignificant. We suggest that disfluency increases the local (orthographic) processing effort on each word but slowed reading might impair relational processing across words. In contrast, testing and generation effect manipulations often engage relational processing (question: answer; cue: target)—yielding subsequent benefits on cued-recall tests. We elaborate this suggestion to reconcile conflicting results across studies.

Individual and Combined Effects of Enactment and Testing on Memory for Action Phrases

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 347-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veit Kubik ◽  
Hedvig Söderlund ◽  
Lars-Göran Nilsson ◽  
Fredrik U. Jönsson
Keyword(s):  
Testing Effect ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Combined Effects ◽  
Additive Effects ◽  
Term Retention ◽  
Long Term Retention ◽  
Retention Intervals ◽  
Study Techniques ◽  
The Individual

We investigated the individual and combined effects of enactment and testing on memory for action phrases to address whether both study techniques commonly promote item-specific processing. Participants (N = 112) were divided into four groups (n = 28). They either exclusively studied 36 action phrases (e.g., “lift the glass”) or both studied and cued-recalled them in four trials. During study trials participants encoded the action phrases either by motorically performing them, or by reading them aloud, and they took final verb-cued recall tests over 18-min and 1-week retention intervals. A testing effect was demonstrated for action phrases, however, only when they were verbally encoded, and not when they were enacted. Similarly, enactive (relative to verbal) encoding reduced the rate of forgetting, but only when the action phrases were exclusively studied, and not when they were also tested. These less-than-additive effects of enactment and testing on the rate of forgetting, as well as on long-term retention, support the notion that both study techniques effectively promote item-specific processing that can only be marginally increased further by combining them.

Long Retention Intervals Impair the Confidence-Accuracy Relationship for Eyewitness Recall

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Rebecca Spearing ◽  
Kimberley A. Wade
Keyword(s):  
Retention Interval ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Eyewitness Confidence ◽  
Eyewitness Accuracy ◽  
Memory Accuracy ◽  
Retrieval Fluency ◽  
Retention Intervals ◽  
Mock Crime ◽  
Very High ◽  
Accuracy Relationship

A growing body of research suggests that confidence judgements can provide a useful indicator of memory accuracy under some conditions. One factor known to affect eyewitness accuracy, yet rarely examined in the confidence-accuracy literature, is retention interval. Using calibration analyses, we investigated how retention interval affects the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness recall. In total, 611 adults watched a mock crime video and completed a cued-recall test either immediately, after 1 week, or after 1 month. Long (1 month) delays led to lower memory accuracy, lower confidence judgements, and impaired the confidence-accuracy relationship compared to shorter (immediate and 1 week) delays. Long-delay participants who reported very high levels of confidence tended to be over-confident in the accuracy of their memories compared to other participants. Self-rated memory ability, however, did not predict eyewitness confidence or the confidence-accuracy relationship. We discuss the findings in relation to cue-utilization theory and a retrieval-fluency account.

scholarly journals Mediating Test Anxiety through the Testing Effect in Asynchronous, Objective, Online Assessments at the University Level

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Test Anxiety ◽  
Testing Effect ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Effective Learning ◽  
Online Evaluation ◽  
Online Assessments ◽  
Text Anxiety ◽  
University Level ◽  
The University

Do asynchronous online evaluations, designed and delivered to engage the testing effect, moderate test anxiety? To answer this question, we surveyed 353 undergraduate and graduate students, drawn from 12 courses, hybrid and online, asking whether the option to take and retake a quiz lessened their text anxiety. Students, no matter the course or level, indicate yes, with more than 90% of the sample agreeing that the option to retake a quiz reduced test anxiety. We also consider this result with regards to the issues of metacognitive accuracy, student engagement, and learning effectiveness. Nearly 95% saw the “anytime, anyplace” test-retest option increasing understanding, improving class engagement, and supporting a more effective learning experience. Our findings profile a promising path to reset traditional as well as refine online evaluation pedagogies.

scholarly journals Self-testing produces superior recall of both familiar and unfamiliar muscle information

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Dobson ◽  
Tracy Linderholm ◽  
Mary Beth Yarbrough
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Testing Effect ◽  
Learning Strategy ◽  
Human Muscle ◽  
Superior Recall ◽  
Self Testing

Dozens of studies have found learning strategies based on the “testing effect” promote greater recall than those that rely solely on reading; however, the advantages of testing are often only observed after a delay (e.g., 2–7 days later). In contrast, our research, which has focused on kinesiology students learning kinesiology information that is generally familiar to them, has consistently demonstrated that testing-based strategies produce greater recall both immediately and after a delay. In an attempt to understand the discrepancies in the literature, the purpose of the present study was to determine if the time-related advantages of a testing-based learning strategy vary with one's familiarity with the to-be-learned information. Participants used both read-only and testing-based strategies to repeatedly study three different sets of information: 1) previously studied human muscle information (familiar information), 2) a mix of previously studied and previously unstudied human muscle information (mixed information), and 3) previously unstudied muscle information that is unique to sharks (unfamiliar information). Learning was evaluated via free recall assessments administered immediately after studying and again after a 1-wk delay and a 3-wk delay. Across those three assessments, the read-only strategy resulted in mean scores of 29.26 ± 1.43, 15.17 ± 1.29, and 5.33 ± 0.77 for the familiar, mixed, and unfamiliar information, respectively, whereas the testing-based strategy produced scores of 34.57 ± 1.58, 16.90 ± 1.31, and 8.33 ± 0.95, respectively. The results indicate that the testing-based strategy produced greater recall immediately and up through the 3-wk delay regardless of the participants' level of familiarity with the muscle information.

scholarly journals Pan and Sana (2021) Pretesting vs. posttesting: Errorful generation, prequestions, and retrieval practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven C. Pan ◽  
Faria Sana
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Expository Text ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Practice Test ◽  
Practice Tests ◽  
Text Passage ◽  
Test Enhanced Learning ◽  
Retention Intervals ◽  
Enhanced Learning ◽  
And Training

The use of practice tests to enhance learning, or test-enhanced learning, ranks among the most effective of all pedagogical techniques. We investigated the relative efficacy of pretesting (i.e., errorful generation) and posttesting (i.e., retrieval practice), two of the most prominent practice test types in the literature to date. Pretesting involves taking tests before to-be-learned information is studied, whereas posttesting involves taking tests after information is studied. In five experiments (combined n = 1,573), participants studied expository text passages, each paired with a pretest or a posttest. The tests involved multiple-choice (Experiments 1-5) or cued recall format (Experiments 2-4) and were administered with or without correct answer feedback (Experiments 3-4). On a criterial test administered 5 minutes or 48 hours later, both test types enhanced memory relative to a no-test control, but pretesting yielded higher overall scores. That advantage held across test formats, in the presence or absence of feedback, at different retention intervals, and appeared to stem from enhanced processing of text passage content (Experiment 5). Thus, although the benefits of posttesting are more well-established in the literature, pretesting is highly competitive with posttesting and can yield similar, if not greater, pedagogical benefits. These findings have important implications for the incorporation of practice tests in education and training contexts.

scholarly journals Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohan W. Gupta ◽  
Steven C. Pan ◽  
Timothy C. Rickard
Keyword(s):  
Testing Effect ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Study Phase ◽  
Content Learning ◽  
Effect Theory ◽  
Test Enhanced Learning ◽  
Enhanced Learning ◽  
Learning Event

AbstractIn three experiments we investigated how the level of study-based, episodic knowledge influences the efficacy of subsequent retrieval practice (testing) as a learning event. Possibilities are that the efficacy of a test, relative to a restudy control, decreases, increases, or is independent of the degree of prior study-based learning. The degree of study-based learning was manipulated by varying the number of item repetitions in the initial study phase between one and eight. Predictions of the dual-memory model of test-enhanced learning for the case of one study-phase repetition were used as a reference. Results support the hypothesis that the advantage of testing over restudy is independent of the degree of prior episodic learning, and they suggest that educators can apply cued-recall testing with the expectation that its efficacy is similar across varying levels of prior content learning. Implications for testing effect theory are discussed.

The Effect of Retrieval Practice on Transitive Inference

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 377-392
Author(s):  
Milton E. Picklesimer ◽  
Zachary L. Buchin ◽  
Neil W. Mulligan
Keyword(s):  
Testing Effect ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Transitive Inference ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Final Test ◽  
Element Interactivity ◽  
Significant Negative Effect ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Retention Intervals

Abstract. Compared to restudying, retrieval practice has often been found to enhance memory (the testing effect). However, it has been proposed that materials with high element interactivity may not benefit from retrieval practice. Transitive inference (TI) requires just such interactivity, in which information must be combined across multiple learning elements or premises. The current study employed a 7-element TI paradigm in which participants initially learned a set of premises (e.g., A > B, B > C, C > D, etc.), then engaged in either restudy or retrieval practice with the premises, and then were given a final test that assessed memory for the original premises and one’s ability to make transitive inferences about them (e.g., to infer that B > D). Three experiments examined TI on final tests with retention intervals of a few minutes (Experiment 1), 2 days (Experiment 2), or up to a week (Experiment 3). Retrieval practice consistently failed to enhance transitive inference. Furthermore, retrieval practice significantly reduced TI in Experiment 1. Across experiments, TI was numerically worse in the retrieval-practice than restudy condition in 4 of 5 comparisons, and a small-scale meta-analysis revealed a significant negative effect of retrieval practice on TI.

scholarly journals Neural Correlates of Long-Term Memory Enhancement Following Retrieval Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenia Marin-Garcia ◽  
Aaron T. Mattfeld ◽  
John D. E. Gabrieli
Keyword(s):  
Testing Effect ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Contrast Study ◽  
Memory Enhancement ◽  
Term Memory

Retrieval practice, relative to further study, leads to long-term memory enhancement known as the “testing effect.” The neurobiological correlates of the testing effect at retrieval, when the learning benefits of testing are expressed, have not been fully characterized. Participants learned Swahili-English word-pairs and were assigned randomly to either the Study-Group or the Test-Group. After a week delay, all participants completed a cued-recall test while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The Test-Group had superior memory for the word-pairs compared to the Study-Group. While both groups exhibited largely overlapping activations for remembered word-pairs, following an interaction analysis the Test-Group exhibited differential performance-related effects in the left putamen and left inferior parietal cortex near the supramarginal gyrus. The same analysis showed the Study-Group exhibited greater activations in the dorsal MPFC/pre-SMA and bilateral frontal operculum for remembered vs. forgotten word-pairs, whereas the Test-Group showed the opposite pattern of activation in the same regions. Thus, retrieval practice during training establishes a unique striatal-supramarginal network at retrieval that promotes enhanced memory performance. In contrast, study alone yields poorer memory but greater activations in frontal regions.

The Testing Effect as a Function of Explicit Testing Instructions and Judgments of Learning

2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 251-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik U. Jönsson ◽  
Margareta Hedner ◽  
Mats J. Olsson
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Memory ◽  
Testing Effect ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Self Testing ◽  
Learning Conditions ◽  
Long Term Retention ◽  
Better Than

During study, people monitor their learning; the output of this monitoring is captured in so-called judgments of learning (JOLs). JOLs predict later recall better if they are made after a slight delay, instead of immediately after study (the delayed JOL effect). According to the self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) hypothesis delayed JOLs are based on covert retrieval attempts from long-term memory, and successful retrieval attempts in themselves enhance learning (the testing effect). We compared memory for 40 Swahili-Swedish paired associates after a week as a function of three different learning conditions, namely study plus (i) explicitly instructed self-testing, (ii) delayed JOLs, or (iii) less self-testing. We showed that repeated delayed JOLs lead to a memory improvement that does not differ significantly from a comparable condition where the participants are explicitly testing memory, and both the latter groups performed reliably better than a group that self-tested less. The results suggest that delayed JOLs improve long-term retention as efficiently as explicit memory testing and lend support to the SFP hypothesis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document