Errorful and errorless learning: The impact of cue–target constraint in learning from errors
The benefits of testing on learning are well described, and attention has recently turned to what happens when errors are elicited during learning: Is testing nonetheless beneficial, or can errors hinder learning? Whilst recent findings have indicated that tests boost learning even if errors are made on every trial, other reports, emphasizing the benefits of errorless learning, have indicated that errors lead to poorer later memory performance. The possibility that this discrepancy is a function of the materials that must be learned—in particular, the relationship between the cues and targets—was addressed here. Cued recall after either a study-only errorless condition or an errorful learning condition was contrasted across cue–target associations, for which the extent to which the target was constrained by the cue was either high or low. Experiment 1 showed that whereas errorful learning led to greater recall for low-constraint stimuli, it led to a significant decrease in recall for high-constraint stimuli. This interaction is thought to reflect the extent to which retrieval is constrained by the cue–target association, as well as by the presence of preexisting semantic associations. The advantage of errorful retrieval for low-constraint stimuli was replicated in Experiment 2, and the interaction with stimulus type was replicated in Experiment 3, even when guesses were randomly designated as being either correct or incorrect. This pattern provides support for inferences derived from reports in which participants made errors on all learning trials, whilst highlighting the impact of material characteristics on the benefits and disadvantages that accrue from errorful learning in episodic memory.
KeywordsTesting effect Cued recall Errorless learning Errorful learning
This research was supported by the German Research Foundation under Grant No. DFG-IRTG-1457, and was conducted in the International Research Training Group “Adaptive Minds,” hosted by Saarland University, Saarbrücken (Germany). We thank Hubert Zimmer for valuable discussion on this topic, as well as Marie Schwartz, Leon Markelis, Katharina Jung, and Stefanie Kolb for assistance with stimulus preparation and data collection.
- Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (Vol. 1, pp. 396–401). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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, 1547–1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
- Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.), The computer and literary studies (pp. 153–165). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
- Melinger, A., & Weber, A. (2006). Database of Noun Associations for German. Retrieved from www.coli.uni-saarland.de/projects/nag/
- Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., & Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember–know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 294–320. doi: 10.1037/0278-73188.8.131.524 Google Scholar
- Reder, L. M., Paynter, C., Diana, R. A., Ngiam, J., & Dickison, D. (2007). Experience is a double-edged sword: A computational model of the encoding/retrieval trade-off with familiarity. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Skill and strategy in memory use (The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 48, pp. 271–312). London, UK: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar