Search

The incorporation of evidence-based practices into the classroom increases achievement and retention of students in STEM. However, the effectiveness of these practices depends on the degree to which faculty are knowledgeable about the strategies and implement the strategies in their teaching. This study investigates the familiarity, adoption, and perceived value of six evidence-based learning strategies (EBLSs): concrete examples, dual coding, elaboration, interleaving, retrieval practice, and spaced practice. A national survey was completed by 606 faculty from across the United States who teach various STEM classes in biology, chemistry, and physics. The results from the survey suggest that overall awareness of EBLSs was relatively low, with the exception of using concrete examples. However, faculty report moderately frequent implementation of several EBLSs into their classrooms and assignments. A majority of faculty report relatively high perceived value of the EBLSs, with the exception of interleaving. Results from the current work can inform professional development opportunities for faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Collaborative inhibition is the counterintuitive finding that learners working in a group recall less information compared with the combined nonredundant output of the same number of learners working individually (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997). Although research has shown that collaborative inhibition occurs for a variety of to‐be‐learned material, no research has evaluated whether the effect emerges for key‐term definitions. In two experiments, learners individually studied key‐term definitions during an initial study phase. Learners then completed a retrieval practice phase, which occurred either collaboratively or individually. After a delay, all learners individually completed a final test phase. Performance during the retrieval practice phase is of greatest interest for present purposes. Results established collaborative inhibition such that recall was lower for learners in the collaborative group versus the individual group, which provides novel evidence to the collaborative memory literature by demonstrating that the effect emerges with key‐term definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although tests typically improve long-term retention, recent research suggests that certain types of tests may disrupt memory, referred to as the negative testing effect. According to one explanatory framework, this detrimental effect on memory results from tests disrupting organizational processing, which hinders the ability to make associations between items. From an educational perspective, these outcomes are concerning because they suggest contexts in which taking a test may impair subsequent retention. However, no research has explored whether the negative testing effect extends to more educational designs and materials. The goal of the current research was twofold: investigate the replicability of the negative testing effect by examining the original demonstration with a novel participant population and explore whether such organizational disruptions generalize to more ecologically valid materials. Outcomes establish the replicability of the negative testing effect and provide evidence that the detrimental effects of testing may not extend to educational material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arnold and McDermott [(2013). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of testing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,39, 940–945] isolated the indirect effects of testing and concluded that encoding is enhanced to a greater extent following more versus fewer practice tests, referred to astest-potentiated learning. The current research provided further evidence for test-potentiated learning and evaluated thecovert retrieval hypothesisas an alternative explanation for the observed effect. Learners initially studied foreign language word pairs and then completed either one or five practice tests before restudy occurred. Results of greatest interest concern performance on test trials following restudy for items that were not correctly recalled on the test trials that preceded restudy. Results replicate Arnold and McDermott (2013) by demonstrating that more versus fewer tests potentiate learning when trial time is limited. Results also provide strong evidence against thecovert retrieval hypothesisconcerning why the effect occurs (i.e., it does not reflect differential covert retrieval during pre-restudy trials). In addition, outcomes indicate that the magnitude of the test-potentiated learning effect decreases as trial length increases, revealing an unexpected boundary condition to test-potentiated learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]