Abstract
Natural category learning is important in science education. One strategy that has been empirically supported for enhancing category learning is testing, which facilitates not only the learning of previously studied information (backward testing effect) but also the learning of newly studied information (forward testing effect). However, in category learning, such benefits of testing have mostly been examined without explicit instructions. This is not aligned with a real educational practice where teachers often provide students with explicit instructions that highlight the diagnostic features of the category. Thus, we investigated the effect of interim testing and feature highlighting on rock category learning and whether the provision of feature highlighting further enhances testing benefits. The participants learned 12 rock categories, which were divided into two sections (Sections A and B). They studied a series of rock images with or without feature highlighting and were given an interim test or not on Section A before proceeding to Section B. After Section B, all the participants took a final test in which they had to classify both old and new rock images of the studied categories. Three experiments demonstrated the benefits of interim testing (compared to restudy) for both previously and newly studied categories. However, feature highlighting did not further enhance learning and sometimes even impeded learning. The findings suggest that providing more information is not always better than providing less information in natural category learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
All data have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/mt2e9/?view_only=753be8b7f23f4931977c4b35db6b266a.
Notes
Prior to Experiment 3, we ran an additional experiment with the two test conditions (FH and no-FH) with feature highlighting only provided as feedback during the interim test session for the FH-test condition as in Experiment 3. The results consistently showed the null effect of feature highlighting. However, due to several critical methodological limitations (e.g., short feedback duration, small sample size, lack of restudy conditions), we decided to run Experiment 3 by addressing all of these limitations. The data of this unreported experiment are available at the following link with all other experimental data: https://osf.io/mt2e9/?view_only=753be8b7f23f4931977c4b35db6b266a.
References
Abel, M., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2016). Retrieval practice can eliminate list method directed forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 44(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0539-x
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 442–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.442
Ashby, F. G., Maddox, W. T., & Bohil, C. J. (2002). Observational versus feedback training in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory & Cognition, 30, 666–677. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196423
Ashby, F. G., Queller, S., & Berretty, P. M. (1999). On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1178–1199. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207622
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
Brunstein, A., Betts, S., & Anderson, J. R. (2009). Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016656
Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326097
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0676-4
Chan, J. C. K., Manley, K. D., Davis, S. D., & Szpunar, K. K. (2018a). Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval and a lag: a strategy change perspective. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.007
Chan, J. C. K., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018b). Retrieval potentiates new learning: a theoretical and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(11), 1111–1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000166
Cho, K. W., Neely, J. H., Crocco, S., & Vitrano, D. (2017). Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1211–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1175485
Choi, H., & Lee, H. S. (2020). Knowing is not half the battle: The role of actual test experience in the forward testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09518-0
Cummings, E. L., Reeb, A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2022). Do not forget the keyword method: Learning educational content with arbitrary associations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000031
Davis, S. D., Chan, J. C., & Wilford, M. M. (2017). The dark side of interpolated testing: Frequent switching between retrieval and encoding impairs new learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.002
Edmunds, C. E. R., Milton, F., & Wills, A. J. (2015). Feedback can be superior to observational training for both rule-based and information-integration category structures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(6), 1203–1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.978875
Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. K. (2017). Interleaved presentation benefits science category learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.005
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: Evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026215
Jacoby, L. L., Wahlheim, C. N., & Coane, J. H. (2010). Test-enhanced learning of natural concepts: Effects on recognition memory, classification, and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1441–1451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020636
JASP Team (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.3) [Computer software].
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000087
Kang, S. H., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801
Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 317–326.
Kliegl, O., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2021). Buildup and release from proactive interference–Cognitive and neural mechanisms. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 120, 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.10.028
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x
Kubik, V., Jönsson, F. U., de Jonge, M., & Arshamian, A. (2020). Putting action into testing: Enacted retrieval benefits long-term retention more than covert retrieval. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 73(12), 2093–2105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820945560
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2019). Cognitive load theory, resource depletion and the delayed testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09476-2
Lee, H. S., & Ahn, D. (2018). Testing prepares students to learn better: The forward effect of testing in category learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000211
Lee, H. S., & Ha, H. (2019). Metacognitive judgments of prior material facilitate the learning of new material: The forward effect of metacognitive judgments in inductive learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1189–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000339
Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087759
Markant, D. B. (2019). Effects of biased hypothesis generation on self-directed category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(9), 1552–1568. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000671
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819
McCloskey, M. E., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197480
McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & Mcdermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 200–206. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194052
McDermott, K. B. (2021). Practicing retrieval facilitates learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051019
Meagher, B. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2022). Effects of feature highlighting and causal explanations on category learning in a natural-science domain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(2), 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000369
Middlebrooks, C. D., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2017). Test expectancy and memory for important information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(6), 972–985. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000360
Miyatsu, T., Gouravajhala, R., Nosofsky, R. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019). Feature highlighting enhances learning of a complex natural-science category. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000538
Miyatsu, T., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019). Adding the keyword mnemonic to retrieval practice: A potent combination for foreign language vocabulary learning? Memory & Cognition, 47(7), 1328–1343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00936-2
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001
Nosofsky, R. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019). Recommendations from cognitive psychology for enhancing the teaching of natural-science categories. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218814861
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.53
Nosofsky, R. M., Sanders, C. A., Meagher, B. J., & Douglas, B. J. (2018). Toward the development of a feature-space representation for a complex natural category domain. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 530–556. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0884-8
O’Day, G. M., & Karpicke, J. D. (2021). Comparing and combining retrieval practice and concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(5), 986–997. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000486
Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2014). Retrieval practice enhances new learning: The forward effect of testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00286
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023956
Rosedahl, L. A., Serota, R., & Ashby, F. G. (2021). When instructions don’t help: Knowing the optimal strategy facilitates rule-based but not information-integration category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(9), 1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000940
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
Schwieren, J., Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2017). The testing effect in the psychology classroom: a meta-analytic perspective. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717695149
Sotola, L. K., & Crede, M. (2021). Regarding class quizzes: a meta-analytic synthesis of studies on the relationship between frequent low-stakes testing and class performance. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09563-9
Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744.004
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
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, 110(16), 6313–6317.
Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. I. I. I. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013082
van den Broek, G. S. E., van Gog, T., Jansen, E., Pleijsant, M., & Kester, L. (2021). Multimedia effects during retrieval practice: Images that reveal the answer reduce vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(8), 1587–1608. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000499
van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: The testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x
Weinstein, Y., Gilmore, A. W., Szpunar, K. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2014). The role of test expectancy in the build-up of proactive interference in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036164
Whitehead, P. S., Zamary, A., & Marsh, E. J. (2021). Transfer of category learning to impoverished contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 1035–1044. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02031-7
Yang, C., Chew, S. J., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2019). The forward effects of testing transfer to different domains of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 809–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000320
Yang, C., Luo, L., Vadillo, M. A., Yu, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2021). Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(4), 399–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). The forward testing effect on self-regulated study time allocation and metamemory monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000122
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: A review of the forward testing effect. npj Science of Learning, 3, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y
Yang, C., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). The forward testing effect: Interim testing enhances inductive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000449
Zeithamova, D., & Maddox, W. T. (2006). Dual-task interference in perceptual category learning. Memory & Cognition, 34, 387–398. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193416
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Preliminary results were presented at the meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2021.
Ethics Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Yonsei University.
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Competing Interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kang, Y., Ha, H. & Lee, H.S. When More Is Not Better: Effects of Interim Testing and Feature Highlighting in Natural Category Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 35, 51 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09772-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09772-y