Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 215–228 | Cite as

Retrieval Practice Benefits Deductive Inference

  • Luke G. Eglington
  • Sean H. K. Kang
Intervention Study

Abstract

Retrieval practice has been shown to benefit learning. However, the benefit has sometimes been attenuated with more complex materials that require integrating multiple units of information. Critically, Tran et al. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 135–140 (2015) found that retrieval practice improves sentence memory but not the drawing of inferences from the same sentences. In three experiments, we investigated whether this lack of benefit of retrieval practice for inferential ability was due to the presentation format of the material. Participants studied four sets of seven to nine related sentences by practicing retrieval for two sets and rereading the other two sets. A final test was given 2 days later. When sentences were presented one at a time during study/practice as in Tran et al., we found no effect of retrieval practice on a test requiring inferential reasoning. When sentences in a set were presented simultaneously during study/practice, retrieval practice in the form of fill-in-the-blank testing (experiments 1 and 2) and free recall (experiment 3) aided later deductive inference more than rereading. Our findings suggest that retrieval practice can improve deductive inference, but in order to optimize its utility, the format in which the material is presented during practice must not hinder relational processing of the individual sentences.

Keywords

Testing effect Retrieval practice Inferential reasoning Deduction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Walter and Constance Burke Research Initiation Award. The authors acknowledge Spencer Chu for assistance with programming the experiments and Randy Tran for providing helpful information regarding the experimental materials. The authors also thank Wafaa Ahmed, Alexandra Gerber, Brendan Schuetze, and Xinyun Tang for assistance with data collection.

References

  1. Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876. doi: 10.1002/acp.1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940–945. doi: 10.1037/a0029199.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1118–1133. doi: 10.1037/a0019902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 1563. doi: 10.1037/a0017021.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(6), 1547–1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140.
  9. Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 279–283. doi: 10.1177/0963721412452728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34, 268–276. doi: 10.3758/BF03193405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Vul, E. (2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 826–830. doi: 10.3758/BF03194004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633–642. doi: 10.3758/BF03202713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, J. C. K., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2013). Impairing existing declarative memory in humans by disrupting reconsolidation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 9309–9313. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218472110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: a JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1–12. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32, 945–955. doi: 10.3758/BF03196872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: a componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and Aging, 15, 462–474. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., & Coté, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: the importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 566–581. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90052-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finn, B., & Roediger, H. L. (2011). Enhancing retention through reconsolidation. Psychological Science, 22, 781–786. doi: 10.1177/0956797611407932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Tabbers, H. K. (2014). The effect of retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 135–142. doi: 10.1002/acp.2956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11413260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinze, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2011). Testing the limits of testing effects using completion tests. Memory, 19, 290–304. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2011.560121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinze, S. R., Wiley, J., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). The importance of constructive comprehension processes in learning from tests. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 151–164. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90138-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kang, S. H. K. (2010). Enhancing visuospatial learning: the benefit of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1009–1017. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528–558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 317–326. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. doi: 10.1126/science.1199327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966–968. doi: 10.1126/science.1152408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: an episodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 237–284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00007-1.Google Scholar
  32. Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016). How retrieval attempts affect learning: a review and synthesis. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 183–215). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/bs.plm. 2016.03.003.Google Scholar
  33. Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 291–304. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9296-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory & Cognition 43(1) 85–98. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0453-7.
  35. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: a contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 113–145. doi: 10.1007/BF01326639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing vs. transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nader, K., & Einarsson, E. Ö. (2010). Memory reconsolidation: an update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 27–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05443.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawson, K. A. (2015). The status of the testing effect for complex materials: still a winner. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 327–331. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9308-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Carpenter, S. K. (2015). Does the benefit of testing depend on lag, and if so, why? Evaluating the elaborative retrieval hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 43, 619–633. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0477-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roediger, & Karpicke. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Taking memory test improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 249–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2006.01693.x
  41. Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 233–239. doi: 10.1037/a0017678.Google Scholar
  42. Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432–1463. doi: 10.1037/a0037559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sara, S. J. (2000). Retrieval and reconsolidation: toward a neurobiology of remembering. Learning & Memory, 7, 73–84. doi: 10.1101/lm.7.2.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tran, R., Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2015). Retrieval practice: the lack of transfer to deductive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 135–140. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0646-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 429–442. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0274-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Gog, T., & Kester, L. (2012). A test of the testing effect: acquiring problem-solving skills from worked examples. Cognitive Science, 36, 1532–1541. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zaromb, F. M., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory & Cognition, 38, 995–1008. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Department of EducationDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations