Metacognitive awareness of the pretesting effect improves with self-regulation support.

The pretesting or prequestion effect refers to the counterintuitive finding that taking tests on information that one has yet to learn, during which many erroneous responses typically occur, can benefit learning relative to nontesting methods (e.g., reading) if the correct answers are studied afterwards. Using a knowledge updating approach that entailed two or three cycles of pretesting versus reading followed by a criterial test, we investigated (a) the extent to which learners develop metacognitive awareness of the pretesting effect through experience (as evidenced by predictions of criterial test performance) and (b) three forms of external support-namely, performance feedback (displaying criterial test performance for pretested versus read items), prediction reminders (displaying learners' predictions alongside performance feedback), and recall prompts (asking learners to remember criterial test performance during the first cycle prior to making predictions for the second cycle)-that might improve, or provide insights into, such awareness. Across five experiments, we found that learners generally lack awareness of the memorial benefits of pretesting, are predisposed to believing that reading is more effective even after repeatedly experiencing both techniques, and need support before they recognize that pretesting is more beneficial. Overall, these results underscore the challenge of, and highlight several means of dislodging, learners' inaccurate beliefs about the efficacy of pretesting.

How do college students use digital flashcards during self-regulated learning?

Over the past two decades, digital flashcards - that is, computer programmes, smartphone apps, and online services that mimic, and potentially improve upon, the capabilities of traditional paper flashcards - have grown in variety and popularity. Many digital flashcard platforms allow learners to make or use flashcards from a variety of sources and customise the way in which flashcards are used. Yet relatively little is known about why and how students actually use digital flashcards during self-regulated learning, and whether such uses are supported by research from the science of learning. To address these questions, we conducted a large survey of undergraduate students (n = 901) at a major U.S. university. The survey revealed insights into the popularity, acquisition, and usage of digital flashcards, beliefs about how digital flashcards are to be used during self-regulated learning, and differences in uses of paper versus digital flashcards, all of which have implications for the optimisation of student learning. Overall, our results suggest that college students commonly use digital flashcards in a manner that only partially reflects evidence-based learning principles, and as such, the pedagogical potential of digital flashcards remains to be fully realised.

Severe publication bias contributes to illusory sleep consolidation in the motor sequence learning literature.

We explored the possibility of publication bias in the sleep and explicit motor sequence learning literature by applying precision effect test (PET) and precision effect test with standard errors (PEESE) weighted regression analyses to the 88 effect sizes from a recent comprehensive literature review (Pan & Rickard, 2015). Basic PET analysis indicated pronounced publication bias; that is, the effect sizes were strongly predicted by their standard error. When variables that have previously been shown to both moderate the sleep gain effect and substantially reduce unaccounted for effect size heterogeneity were included in that analysis, evidence for publication bias remained strong. The estimated postsleep gain was negative, suggesting forgetting rather than facilitation, and it was statistically indistinguishable from the estimated postwake gain. In a qualitative review of a smaller group of more recent studies we observed that (a) small sample sizes-a major factor behind the publication bias-are still the norm, (b) use of demonstrably flawed experimental design and analysis remains prevalent, and (c) when authors conclude in favor of sleep-dependent consolidation, they frequently do not cite the articles in which those methodological flaws have been demonstrated. We conclude that there is substantial publication bias, that there is no consolidation-based, absolute performance gain following sleep, and that strong conclusions regarding the hypothesis of less forgetting after sleep than after wakefulness should await further research. Recommendations are made for reducing publication bias in future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice.

In three experiments we investigated how the level of study-based, episodic knowledge influences the efficacy of subsequent retrieval practice (testing) as a learning event. Possibilities are that the efficacy of a test, relative to a restudy control, decreases, increases, or is independent of the degree of prior study-based learning. The degree of study-based learning was manipulated by varying the number of item repetitions in the initial study phase between one and eight. Predictions of the dual-memory model of test-enhanced learning for the case of one study-phase repetition were used as a reference. Results support the hypothesis that the advantage of testing over restudy is independent of the degree of prior episodic learning, and they suggest that educators can apply cued-recall testing with the expectation that its efficacy is similar across varying levels of prior content learning. Implications for testing effect theory are discussed.

Interleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics.

We investigated whether continuously alternating between topics during practice, or interleaved practice, improves memory and the ability to solve problems in undergraduate physics. Over 8 weeks, students in two lecture sections of a university-level introductory physics course completed thrice-weekly homework assignments, each containing problems that were interleaved (i.e., alternating topics) or conventionally arranged (i.e., one topic practiced at a time). On two surprise criterial tests containing novel and more challenging problems, students recalled more relevant information and more frequently produced correct solutions after having engaged in interleaved practice (with observed median improvements of 50% on test 1 and 125% on test 2). Despite benefiting more from interleaved practice, students tended to rate the technique as more difficult and incorrectly believed that they learned less from it. Thus, in a domain that entails considerable amounts of problem-solving, replacing conventionally arranged with interleaved homework can (despite perceptions to the contrary) foster longer lasting and more generalizable learning.

Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice.

The use of practice tests to enhance learning, or test-enhanced learning, ranks among the most effective of all pedagogical techniques. We investigated the relative efficacy of pretesting (i.e., errorful generation) and posttesting (i.e., retrieval practice), two of the most prominent practice test types in the literature to date. Pretesting involves taking tests before to-be-learned information is studied, whereas posttesting involves taking tests after information is studied. In five experiments (combined n = 1,573), participants studied expository text passages, each paired with a pretest or a posttest. The tests involved multiple-choice (Experiments 1-5) or cued recall format (Experiments 2-4) and were administered with or without correct answer feedback (Experiments 3-4). On a criterial test administered 5 min or 48 hr later, both test types enhanced memory relative to a no-test control, but pretesting yielded higher overall scores. That advantage held across test formats, in the presence or absence of feedback, at different retention intervals, and appeared to stem from enhanced processing of text passage content (Experiment 5). Thus, although the benefits of posttesting are more well-established in the literature, pretesting is highly competitive with posttesting and can yield similar, if not greater, pedagogical benefits. These findings have important implications for the incorporation of practice tests in education and training contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Where and how to learn: The interactive benefits of contextual variation, restudying, and retrieval practice for learning.

Students are often advised to do all of their studying in one good place, but restudying to-be-learned material in a new context can enhance subsequent recall. We examined whether there are similar benefits for testing. In Experiment 1 (n = 106), participants studied a 36-word list and 48 hr later-when back in the same or a new context-either restudied or recalled the list without feedback. After another 48 hr, all participants free-recalled the list in a new context. Experiment 2 (n = 203) differed by having the testing-condition participants restudy the list before being tested. Across both experiments, testing in a new context reduced recall, which carried over to the final test, whereas restudying in a new context did not impair (and in Experiment 2, significantly enhanced) recall. These findings reveal critical interactions between contextual-variation and retrieval-practice effects, which we interpret as consistent with a distribution-of-memory-strengths framework.

Learning from errors: students' and instructors' practices, attitudes, and beliefs.

In some educational contexts, such as during assessments, it is essential to avoid errors. In other contexts, however, generating an error can foster valuable learning opportunities. For instance, generating errors can improve memory for correct answers. In two surveys conducted at three large public universities in North America, we investigated undergraduate students' and instructors' awareness of the pedagogical benefits of generating errors, as well as related practices, attitudes, and beliefs. Surveyed topics included the incorporation of errors into learning activities, opinions about the consequences of studying errors, and approaches to feedback. Many students had an aversion towards making errors during learning and did not use opportunities to engage in errorful generation, yet studied or analysed errors when they occurred. Many instructors had a welcoming attitude towards errors that occur during learning, yet varied in providing students with resources that facilitate errorful generation. Overall, these findings reveal the prevalence of an ambivalent approach to errors: Students and instructors avoid generating errors but prioritise learning from them when they occur. These results have important implications for the implementation of pretesting, productive failure, and other error-focused learning techniques in educational contexts.

Test-enhanced learning for pairs and triplets: When and why does transfer occur?

In four experiments, we explored conditions under which learning due to retrieval practice (i.e., testing) transfers to the case in which the cue and response words are rearranged (e.g., a training test on gift, rose, ?, wherein the target is wine, and a final test on gift, ?, wine, wherein the answer is rose). In both Experiment 1 and a supplementary experiment, we observed divergent results for pairs and triplets: Relative to a restudy control condition, strong transfer was observed for pairs, but none for triplets. In Experiments 2 and 3, the theoretical basis of the specificity of learning for triplets was explored. The results rule out the possibilities that transfer is wholly absent for triplets and that transfer occurs only for the case of exact cue-response reversal on the final test. Rather, it appears that, for both pairs and triplets, transfer will occur unless both of the following conditions hold: (1) two or more independent cues are presented on the training test, and (2) the correct responses on the training and final tests are different. We show that the majority of the results can be explained by combining the dual-memory theory of the testing effect with an inclusive-OR representation that forms when two or more cues are presented on the training test. Follow-up analyses that were conditionalized on training test accuracy suggest that specificity of learning is greater on a correct than on an incorrect training test trial, although selection confounds and contradictory experimental results preclude a strong conclusion.

Online and Clicker Quizzing on Jargon Terms Enhances Definition-Focused but Not Conceptually Focused Biology Exam Performance.

Mastery of jargon terms is an important part of student learning in biology and other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics domains. In two experiments, we investigated whether prelecture quizzes enhance memory for jargon terms, and whether that enhanced familiarity can facilitate learning of related concepts that are encountered during subsequent lectures and readings. Undergraduate students enrolled in neuroanatomy and physiology courses completed 10-minute low-stakes quizzes with feedback on jargon terms either online (experiment 1) or using in-class clickers (experiment 2). Quizzes occurred before conventional course instruction in which the terms were used. On exams occurring up to 12 weeks later, we observed improved student performance on questions that targeted memory of previously quizzed jargon terms and their definitions relative to questions on terms that were not quizzed. This pattern occurred whether those questions were identical (experiment 1) or different (experiment 2) from those used during quizzing. Benefits of jargon quizzing did not consistently generalize, however, to exam questions that assessed conceptual knowledge but not necessarily jargon knowledge. Overall, this research demonstrates that a brief and easily implemented jargon-quizzing intervention, deliverable via Internet or in-class platforms, can yield substantial improvements in students' course-relevant scientific lexica, but does not necessarily impact conceptual learning.

Conditions of highly specific learning through cued recall.

After studying a stimulus (e.g., a word triplet such as gift, rose, wine), taking a cued recall test on that stimulus (e.g., gift, rose, ?) improves later recall of the retrieved term (e.g., wine) relative to a restudy control. That testing effect, however, is specific to the tested term: later recall of a previously untested term from the same stimulus (e.g., gift or rose) is not enhanced. In the present research, two possibilities for that highly specific learning were investigated: (a) learning through cued recall is always highly specific to the tested term, or, alternatively, (b) learning specificity is unique to the case of retrieving a term from an episodic memory of a study event. We addressed those possibilities by using the pretesting paradigm, in which there is no study opportunity prior to cued recall testing, and hence retrieval occurs through semantic memory. The results of two experiments supported the latter hypothesis. Thus, it is not the recall attempt per se that produces highly specific learning, but rather the attempt to recall the response by accessing an episodic memory of a particular study event. Theoretical and practical implications for learning through cued recall are discussed.

Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis.

Attempting recall of information from memory, as occurs when taking a practice test, is one of the most potent training techniques known to learning science. However, does testing yield learning that transfers to different contexts? In the present article, we report the findings of the first comprehensive meta-analytic review into that question. Our review encompassed 192 transfer effect sizes extracted from 122 experiments and 67 published and unpublished articles (N = 10,382) that together comprise more than 40 years of research. A random-effects model revealed that testing can yield transferrable learning as measured relative to a nontesting reexposure control condition (d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.31, 0.50]). That transfer of learning is greatest across test formats, to application and inference questions, to problems involving medical diagnoses, and to mediator and related word cues; it is weakest to rearranged stimulus-response items, to untested materials seen during initial study, and to problems involving worked examples. Moderator analyses further indicated that response congruency and elaborated retrieval practice, as well as initial test performance, strongly influence the likelihood of positive transfer. In two assessments for publication bias using PET-PEESE and various selection methods, the moderator effect sizes were minimally affected. However, the intercept predictions were substantially reduced, often indicating no positive transfer when none of the aforementioned moderators are present. Overall, our results motivate a three-factor framework for transfer of test-enhanced learning and have practical implications for the effective use of practice testing in educational and other training contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record

A dual memory theory of the testing effect.

A new theoretical framework for the testing effect-the finding that retrieval practice is usually more effective for learning than are other strategies-is proposed, the empirically supported tenet of which is that separate memories form as a consequence of study and test events. A simplest case quantitative model is derived from that framework for the case of cued recall. With no free parameters, that model predicts both proportion correct in the test condition and the magnitude of the testing effect across 10 experiments conducted in our laboratory, experiments that varied with respect to material type, retention interval, and performance in the restudy condition. The model also provides the first quantitative accounts of (a) the testing effect as a function of performance in the restudy condition, (b) the upper bound magnitude of the testing effect, (c) the effect of correct answer feedback, (d) the testing effect as a function of retention interval for the cases of feedback and no feedback, and (e) the effect of prior learning method on subsequent learning through testing. Candidate accounts of several other core phenomena in the literature, including test-potentiated learning, recognition versus cued recall training effects, cued versus free recall final test effects, and other select transfer effects, are also proposed. Future prospects and relations to other theories are discussed.

Time for considering the possibility that sleep plays no unique role in motor memory consolidation: Reply to Adi-Japha and Karni (2016).

The hypothesis that sleep makes a unique contribution to motor memory consolidation has been debated in recent years. In the target article (Pan & Rickard, 2015), we reported results of a comprehensive meta-analysis of the explicit motor sequence learning literature in which evidence was evaluated for both enhanced performance after sleep and stabilization after sleep. After accounting for confounding variables, we found no compelling evidence for either empirical phenomenon, and hence no compelling evidence for sleep-specific consolidation. In their comment, Adi-Japha and Karni (2016) critiqued the target article on three primary grounds: (a) our unrealistic (in their view) assumption that, if sleep-specific consolidation occurs, it is mechanistically unitary across all variants of the motor sequence experiments included in the meta-analysis, (b) our inclusion of child groups, which they believe may have resulted in an underestimation of sleep effects among adult groups, and (c) our inclusion of several experiments with atypical experimental designs, which may have introduced unaccounted for heterogeneity. In this reply we address each of those potentially legitimate concerns. We show that the metaregression allowed for tests of multiple candidate variables that could engender separate consolidation mechanisms, yielding no behavioral evidence for it. We also show through reanalysis that the inclusion of child groups had virtually no impact on the parameter estimates among adults, and that the inclusion of experiments with atypical designs did not materially influence parameter estimates. (PsycINFO Database Record

Does retrieval practice enhance learning and transfer relative to restudy for term-definition facts?

In many pedagogical contexts, term-definition facts that link a concept term (e.g., "vision") with its corresponding definition (e.g., "the ability to see") are learned. Does retrieval practice involving retrieval of the term (given the definition) or the definition (given the term) enhance subsequent recall, relative to restudy of the entire fact? Moreover, does any benefit of retrieval practice for the term transfer to later recall of the definition, or vice versa? We addressed those questions in 4 experiments. In each, subjects first studied term-definition facts and then trained on two thirds of the facts using multiple-choice tests with feedback. Half of the test questions involved recalling terms; the other half involved recalling definitions. The remaining facts were either not trained (Experiment 1) or restudied (Experiments 2-4). A 48-hr delayed multiple-choice (Experiments 1-2) or short answer (Experiments 3a-4) final test assessed recall of all terms or all definitions. Replicating and extending prior research, retrieval practice yielded improved recall and positive transfer relative to no training. Relative to restudy, however, retrieval practice consistently enhanced subsequent term retrieval, enhanced subsequent definition retrieval only after repeated practice, and consistently yielded at best minimal positive transfer in either direction. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Does test-enhanced learning transfer for triple associates?

Test-enhanced learning and transfer for triple-associate word stimuli was assessed in three experiments. In each experiment, training and final-test trials involved the presentation of two words per triple associate (triplet), with the third word having to be retrieved. In agreement with the prior literature on different stimuli, training through testing with feedback yielded markedly better final-test performance than did restudy. However, in contrast to the positive transfer reported for paired associate stimuli, minimal or no positive transfer was observed, relative to a restudy control, from a trained cue combination (e.g., A, B, ?) to other cue combinations from the same triplet that required a different response (e.g., B, C, ?). That result also held when two unique cue combinations per triplet were tested during training, and for triplets with low and high average associative strengths. Supplementary analyses provided insight into the overall transfer effect: An incorrect response during training appears to yield positive transfer relative to restudy, whereas a correct response appears to yield no, or even negative, transfer. Cross-experiment analyses indicated that test-enhanced learning is not diminished when two or three cue combinations are presented during training. Thus, even though learning through testing is highly specific, testing on all possible stimulus-response combinations remains the most efficient strategy for the learning of triple associates.

Does testing with feedback improve adult spelling skills relative to copying and reading?

We examined testing's ability to enhance adult spelling acquisition, relative to copying and reading. Across 3 experiments in which testing with feedback was compared with copying, the spelling improvement after testing matched that following the same amount of time spent copying. A potent testing advantage, however, was observed for spelling words free-recalled. In the fourth experiment, a large testing advantage for both word free recall and spelling was observed, versus reading. Subjects also generally preferred testing and rated it as more effective than copying or reading. The equivalent performance of testing and copying for spelling contrasts with prior work involving children and suggests that retrieval practice may not be the only effective mechanism for spelling skill acquisition. Rather, we suggest that the critical learning event for spelling is focused study on phoneme-to-grapheme mappings for previously unlearned letter sequences. For adults with extensive spelling expertise, focused study is more automatic during both copying and testing with feedback than for individuals with beginning spelling skills. Reading, however, would not be expected to produce efficient focused study of phoneme-to-grapheme mappings, regardless of expertise level. Overall, adult spelling skill acquisition benefits both from testing and copying, and substantially less from reading.

Sleep and motor learning: Is there room for consolidation?

It is widely believed that sleep is critical to the consolidation of learning and memory. In some skill domains, performance has been shown to improve by 20% or more following sleep, suggesting that sleep enhances learning. However, recent work suggests that those performance gains may be driven by several factors that are unrelated to sleep consolidation, inviting a reconsideration of sleep's theoretical role in the consolidation of procedural memories. Here we report the first comprehensive investigation of that possibility for the case of motor sequence learning. Quantitative meta-analyses involving 34 articles, 88 experimental groups and 1,296 subjects confirmed the empirical pattern of a large performance gain following sleep and a significantly smaller gain following wakefulness. However, the results also confirm strong moderating effects of 4 previously hypothesized variables: averaging in the calculation of prepost gain scores, build-up of reactive inhibition over training, time of testing, and training duration, along with 1 supplemental variable, elderly status. With those variables accounted for, there was no evidence that sleep enhances learning. Thus, the literature speaks against, rather than for, the enhancement hypothesis. Overall there was relatively better performance after sleep than after wakefulness, suggesting that sleep may stabilize memory. That effect, however, was not consistent across different experimental designs. We conclude that sleep does not enhance motor learning and that the role of sleep in the stabilization of memory cannot be conclusively determined based on the literature to date. We discuss challenges and opportunities for the field, make recommendations for improved experimental design, and suggest approaches to data analysis that eliminate confounds due to averaging over online learning. (PsycINFO Database Record