Search

Researchers generally agree that retrieval practice of previously learned material facilitates subsequent recall of same material, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. There is debate, however, about when such benefits transfer to related (though not identical) material. The current study examines the phenomenon of transfer in the domain of analogical problem-solving. In Experiments 1 and 2, learners were presented a source text describing a problem and solution to read which was subsequently either restudied or recalled. Following a short (Experiment 1) or long (Experiment 2) delay, learners were given a new target text and asked to solve a problem. The two texts shared a common structure such that the provided solution for the source text could be applied to solve the problem in the target text. In a combined analysis of both experiments, learners in the retrieval practice condition were more successful at solving the problem than those in the restudy condition. Experiment 3 explored the degree to which retrieval practice promotes cued versus spontaneous transfer by manipulating whether participants were provided with an explicit hint that the source and target texts were related. Results revealed no effect of retrieval practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tran et al. (2015) evaluated whether engaging in practice testing versus restudy promotes transfer and concluded that testing does not enhance performance on a deductive reasoning task. The current research further evaluated Tran et al. (2015) and an alternative explanation for the observed effect—namely, that testing did not enhance memory for the information required to complete the deductive reasoning task. Learners studied premises from four scenarios and engaged in testing or restudy during practice. Following practice, learners completed a multiple-choice test that required them to deductively reason from premises. Results replicate Tran et al. (2015) by demonstrating that fill-in-the-blank testing does not promote transfer on a deductive reasoning task. Results also provide evidence suggesting that deductive reasoning depends on complete memory for requisite pieces of information and that testing effects on deductive reasoning are more likely to obtain under conditions that yield a memory advantage for testing versus restudy. [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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]