Advertisement

Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 803–816 | Cite as

The pedagogical value of testing: how far does it extend?

  • Kevin W. Eva
  • Colleen Brady
  • Marion Pearson
  • Katherine Seto
Article

Abstract

Information is generally more memorable after it is studied and tested than when it is only studied. One must be cautious to use this phenomenon strategically, however, due to uncertainty about whether testing improves memorability for only tested material, facilitates learning of related non-tested content, or inhibits memory of non-tested material. 52 second-year Pharmacy students were asked to study therapeutic aspects of gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease. One group was given 30 min to study. Another was given 20 min to study and 10 min to complete a 10-item test. Two weeks later a 40-item test was delivered to both groups that contained (a) the 10 learning phase questions, (b) 10 new questions drawn from the studied material, (c) 10 new questions about therapeutics in different disease states, and (d) 10 new questions drawn from more general pharmaceutical knowledge (e.g., basic physiology and drug characteristics). Moderate to large retrieval-enhanced learning effects were observed for both questions about material that was tested (22.9% difference in scores, p < 0.05, d = 0.60) and questions about material that was studied without being tested (18.9% difference, p < 0.05, d = 0.75). Such effects were not observed for questions that were not part of the study material: therapeutic questions that addressed different disease states (1.8% difference, p > 0.7, d = 0.08) or generic pharmaceutical questions (7.4% difference, p > 0.2, d = 0.32). Being tested made it more likely that students would report reviewing the material after the initial learning session, but such reports were not associated with better test performance. The benefit of mentally retrieving information from studied material appears to facilitate the retrieval of information that was studied without being tested. Such generalization of the benefit of testing can increase the flexibility of test-based pedagogic interventions.

Keywords

Assessment-for-learning Test-enhanced learning Retrieval-enhanced learning Retrieval-induced facilitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Lucy Chan for her assistance with data collection and Dr. David Fielding for his contributions towards enabling this project to be completed.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of University of British Columbia.

Previous presentations

The abstract of an earlier version of this article was presented at the Centre for Health Education Scholarship’s Celebration of Scholarship, University of British Columbia.

References

  1. Anderson, M., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087.Google Scholar
  2. Baghdady, M., Carnahan, H., Lam, E. W., & Woods, N. N. (2014). Test-enhanced learning and its effect on comprehension and diagnostic accuracy. Medical Education, 48(2), 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, J. C. K. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cranney, J., Ahn, M., McKinnon, R., Morris, S., & Watts, K. (2008). The testing effect, collaborative learning, and retrieval induced facilitation in a classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 919–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(1), 4–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eva, K. W., Bordage, G., Campbell, C., Galbraith, R., Ginsburg, S., Holmboe, E., et al. (2016). Towards a program of assessment for health professionals: From training into practice. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(4), 897–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eva, K., & Regehr, G. (2010). Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(3), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kromann, C. B., Jensen, M. L., & Ringsted, C. (2009). The effect of testing on skills learning. Medical Education, 43(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2008). Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Medical Education, 42(10), 959–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larsen, D. P., & Dornan, T. (2013). Quizzes and conversations: Exploring the role of retrieval in medical education. Medical Education, 47(12), 1236–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McLaughlin, K., & Coderre, S. (2015). The potential and conditional benefits of retrieval practice on learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(2), 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mylopoulos, M., Brydges, R., Woods, N. N., Manzone, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2016). Preparation for future learning: A missing competency in health professions education? Medical Education, 50(1), 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newble, D. (2016). Revisiting ‘The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students’. Medical Education, 50(5), 498–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schuwirth, L. W., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. (2011). Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher, 33(6), 478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, L. B. (2012). Medical school and on-line learning: Does optional attendance create absentee doctors? Medical Education, 46, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin W. Eva
    • 1
  • Colleen Brady
    • 2
  • Marion Pearson
    • 2
  • Katherine Seto
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Centre for Health Education ScholarshipUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations