How crucial is the response format for the testing effect?
- 769 Downloads
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.
KeywordsTarget Word Retention Interval Word Pair Response Format Test Cycle
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Engelkamp, J., & Krumnacker, H. (1980). Imaginale und motorische Prozesse beim Behalten verbalen Materials. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 27, 511–533.Google Scholar
- Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6(40), 1–104.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Shaps, L. P., Johansson, B., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1976). Swedish Association Norms. (Report No. 196). Uppsala: Department of Psychology, Uppsala University.Google Scholar