Search

Finding creative and effective ways to support student experiences and student learning in the classroom is an important goal for instructors, especially as remote and hybrid formats become more common and new, educational technologies are recommended. The current work involved the creation and implementation of a curricular innovation using Flip to encourage the use of evidence-based learning strategies and promote a sense of community in a college classroom. A survey was developed and administered as extra credit in a large Introduction to Psychology class in Spring 2021, with questions focused on examining student perceptions of using Flip in the classroom. Results revealed that students enjoyed using Flip for assignments, believed that Flip assignments helped their learning of class content, and recommended the instructor keeping using Flip in future semesters. The current work highlights the versatility and benefit of using Flip as an instructional tool in the classroom.

Although memory retrieval often enhances subsequent memory, Peterson and Mulligan (2013) reported conditions under which retrieval produces poorer subsequent recall--the negative testing effect. The item-specific--relational account proposes that the effect occurs when retrieval disrupts interitem organizational processing relative to the restudy condition. Rawson et al. (2015), in contrast, failed to replicate the negative testing effect despite repeated high-powered attempts. This article examines the discrepant results, ruling out differences in procedures, and concludes that differences in participant population produced the varying outcome. Specifically, participants from the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Kent State University (KSU) completed the same version of the negative-testing paradigm and were assessed on several measures of cognitive ability (working memory capacity, Raven's progressive matrices, and SAT or ACT score). For the UNC sample, free recall scores and the amount of category clustering (a measure of organizational processing) was greater in the restudy than retrieval condition (i.e., the negative testing effect was found); for the KSU sample, there was no difference on either measure. Furthermore, in the restudy condition, recall and clustering was greater for UNC than KSU students whereas in the retrieval condition, there was no effect of site on either measure. As expected, measures of cognitive ability were greater for the UNC than KSU sample. The results indicate that the negative testing effect is replicable but is subject to limitation related to the participant population. An analysis in terms of the relationship between cognitive ability and memory predicted this pattern of results.

Recent research on testing effects (i.e., practice tests are more effective than restudy for enhancing subsequent memory) has focused on explaining when and why testing enhances memory. Of particular interest for present purposes, Zaromb and Roediger (2010) reported evidence that testing effects in part reflect enhanced relational processing, which refers to the encoding of similarity among to-be-learned items. The "multifactor account" of testing effects (Peterson & Mulligan, 2013) further distinguishes between processing of cue-target relations ("intraitem relational processing") and processing of relations shared by targets from different items ("interitem relational processing"). The intriguing claim of this account is that testing enhances intraitem relational processing at the expense of interitem relational processing. Confirming predictions of this account, Peterson and Mulligan (2013) found negative testing effects on final free recall and on a measure of interitem relational processing (the same measures on which Zaromb and Roediger found positive testing effects). The original intent of the current research was to resolve this theoretical debate by replicating and extending the findings of Peterson and Mulligan (2013) to identify the locus of the apparent inconsistency in the outcomes reported in these 2 studies. However, 5 high-powered experiments affording 8 comparisons of testing versus restudy did not replicate the negative testing effect on final memory performance nor on most measures of interitem relational processing. Thus, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that testing does not impair relational processing.

The current research evaluated the extent to which the grain size of recall practice for lengthy text material affects recall during practice and subsequent memory. The "grain size hypothesis" states that a smaller vs. larger grain size will increase retrieval success during practice that in turn will enhance subsequent memory for lengthy text material. Participants were prompted to recall directly after studying each section (section recall) or after all sections had been studied (whole-text recall) during practice, and then all participants completed a final test after a delay. Results across 7 experiments (including 587 participants and 1,394 recall protocols) partially disconfirmed the predictions of the grain size hypothesis: Although the smaller grain size produced sizable recall advantages during practice as expected ("ds" from 1.02 to 1.87 across experiments), the advantage was substantially or completely attenuated across a delay. Experiments 2-7 falsified several plausible methodological and theoretical explanations for the fragility of the effect, indicating that it was not due to particular text materials, retrieval from working memory during practice, the length of the retention interval, the spacing between study and practice recall, a disproportionate increase in recall of unimportant details, or a deficit in integration of ideas across text sections. In sum, results conclusively establish an initially sizable but mysteriously fragile effect of grain size, for which an explanation remains elusive.

Alternative grading strategies are increasingly popular in higher education, but research into the outcomes of these strategies is limited. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the relevant research regarding alternative grading strategies in undergraduate STEM and identify gaps in the literature to inform future research. This scoping review was done using the stages as described by Arksey and O'Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32, 2005). The results of this review indicate there is a lack of consensus on the theoretical foundation for the benefits of alternative grading and, therefore, limited validated tools being used to capture these benefits. Additionally, we find that research into alternative grading methods tends to occur in both disciplinary and practice-based silos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]