Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 78, Issue 5, pp 623–633 | Cite as

How crucial is the response format for the testing effect?

  • Fredrik U. JönssonEmail author
  • Veit Kubik
  • Max Larsson Sundqvist
  • Ivo Todorov
  • Bert Jonsson
Original Article

Abstract

Combining study and test trials during learning is more beneficial for long-term retention than repeated study without testing (i.e., the testing effect). Less is known about the relative efficacy of different response formats during testing. We tested the hypothesis that overt testing (typing responses on a keyboard) during a practice phase benefits later memory more than covert testing (only pressing a button to indicate successful retrieval). In Experiment 1, three groups learned 40 word pairs either by repeatedly studying them, by studying and overtly testing them, or by studying and covertly testing them. In Experiment 2, only the two testing conditions were manipulated in a within-subjects design. In both experiments, participants received cued recall tests after a short (~19 min) and a long (1 week) retention interval. In Experiment 1, all groups performed equally well at the short retention interval. The overt testing group reliably outperformed the repeated study group after 1 week, whereas the covert testing group performed insignificantly different from both these groups. Hence, the testing effect was demonstrated for overt, but failed to show for covert testing. In Experiment 2, overtly tested items were better and more quickly retrieved than those covertly tested. Further, this does not seem to be due to any differences in retrieval effort during learning. To conclude, overt testing was more beneficial for later retention than covert testing, but the effect size was small. Possible explanations are discussed.

Keywords

Target Word Retention Interval Word Pair Response Format Test Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from The Swedish Research Council (2009-2334) to Fredrik Jönsson. We thank Tara Soltani for help with parts of the data collection in Experiment 1.

References

  1. Ackerman, R., & Koriat, A. (2011). Response latency as a predictor of the accuracy of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 406–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: an interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: the loyola symposium (pp. 123–144). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory and Cognition, 34, 268–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2007). Testing beyond words: using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 474–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Vul, E. (2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 826–830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J. T., & Vul, E. (2008). The effects of tests on learning and forgetting. Memory and Cognition, 36, 438–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory and Cognition, 20, 633–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: a review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 352–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, R. L. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelkamp, J. (2001). Action memory: a system-oriented approach. In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn, J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M. C. Foley (Eds.), Memory for action: a distinct form of episodic memory? (pp. 49–96). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Engelkamp, J., & Krumnacker, H. (1980). Imaginale und motorische Prozesse beim Behalten verbalen Materials. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 27, 511–533.Google Scholar
  14. Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6(40), 1–104.Google Scholar
  15. Halamish, V., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 801–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogan, R. M., & Kintsch, W. (1971). Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 562–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt, R. R. (2006). The concept of distinctiveness in memory research. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 3–25). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Izawa, C. (1976). Vocalized and silent tests in paired-associate learning. The American Journal of Psychology, 89, 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, C. J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive components of picture naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 113–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jönsson, F. U., Hedner, M., & Olsson, M. J. (2012). The testing effect as a function of explicit testing instructions and judgments of learning. Experimental Psychology, 59, 251–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang, S. H. K. (2010). Enhancing visuospatial learning: the benefit of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1009–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: a distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornell, N., & Rhodes, M. G. (2013). Feedback reduces the metacognitive benefit of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 1–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Krumboltz, J. D., & Weisman, R. G. (1962). The effect of overt versus covert responding to programed instruction on immediate and delayed retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhl, B., & Anderson, M. (2011). More is not always better: paradoxical effects of repetition on semantic accessibility. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 964–972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuo, T. M., & Hirshman, E. (1996). Investigations of the testing effect. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larsson Sundqvist, M., Todorov, I., Kubik, V., & Jönsson, F. U. (2012). Study for now, but judge for later: delayed judgments of learning promote long-term retention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 450–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.-C., Anton, J.-L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., et al. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 802–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.-C., & Velay, J.-L. (2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: a comparison between handwriting and typing. Human Movement Science, 25, 646–656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 36, 671–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mangen, A., & Velay, J.-L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: reflections on the haptics of writing. In M. H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in haptics. Vienna: IN-TECH web.Google Scholar
  32. Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Familiarity and retrieval processes in delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1084–1097.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naka, M., & Naoi, H. (1995). The effect of repeated writing on memory. Memory and Cognition, 23, 201–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The delayed-JOL effect. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Norms of paired-associate recall during multitrial learning of Swahili–English translation equivalents. Memory, 2, 325–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelson, T. O., Leonesio, J., Shimamura, A. P., Landwehr, R. F., & Narens, L. (1982). Overlearning and the feeling of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nilsson, L. G. (2000). Remembering actions and words. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The oxford handbook of memory (pp. 137–148). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect? Memory and Cognition, 41, 36–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 416–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., Kang, S. H. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Benefits of testing memory: best practices and boundary conditions. In G. M. Davies & D. B. Wright (Eds.), New frontiers in applied memory (pp. 13–49). Brighton: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  44. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaps, L. P., Johansson, B., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1976). Swedish Association Norms. (Report No. 196). Uppsala: Department of Psychology, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  47. Spellman, B. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). When predictions create reality: judgments of learning may alter what they are intended to assess. Psychological Science, 3, 315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steffens, M. C., Buchner, A., Wender, K. F., & Decker, C. (2007). Limits on the role of retrieval cues in memory for actions: enactment effects in the absence of object cues in the environment. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1841–1853.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). The testing effect and the retention interval: questions and answers. Experimental Psychology, 56, 252–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van den Broek, G. S. E., Takashima, A., Segers, E., Fernández, G., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Neural correlates of testing effects in vocabulary learning. Neuroimage, 78, 94–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitten, W. B, I. I., & Bjork, R. A. (1977). Learning from tests: effects of spacing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmer, H. D., & Engelkamp, J. (2003). Signing enhances memory like performing actions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 450–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik U. Jönsson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Veit Kubik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Max Larsson Sundqvist
    • 1
  • Ivo Todorov
    • 1
  • Bert Jonsson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm Brain InstituteStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations