Literature DB >> 22582968

When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study.

Matthew Jensen Hays1, Nate Kornell, Robert A Bjork.   

Abstract

Teachers and trainers often try to prevent learners from making errors, but recent findings (e.g., Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009) have demonstrated that tests can potentiate subsequent learning even when the correct answer is difficult or impossible to generate (e.g., "What is Nate Kornell's middle name?"). In 3 experiments, we explored when and why a failed test enhances learning. We found that failed tests followed by immediate feedback produced greater retention than did a presentation-only condition. Failed tests followed by delayed feedback, by contrast, did not produce such a benefit-except when the direction of the final test was reversed (i.e., the participants were provided with the target and had to produce the original cue). Our findings suggest that generating an incorrect response to a cue both activates the semantic network associated with the cue and suppresses the correct response. These processes appear to have 2 consequences: If feedback is presented immediately, the semantic activation enhances the mapping of the cue to the correct response; if feedback is presented at a delay, the prior suppression boosts the learning of the suppressed response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22582968     DOI: 10.1037/a0028468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  16 in total

1.  Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests.

Authors:  Kathleen M Arnold; Kathleen B McDermott
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-07-09       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Does test-enhanced learning transfer for triple associates?

Authors:  Steven C Pan; Carol M Wong; Zachary E Potter; Jonathan Mejia; Timothy C Rickard
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-01

Review 3.  A dual memory theory of the testing effect.

Authors:  Timothy C Rickard; Steven C Pan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

4.  Metacognitive control in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice.

Authors:  Thomas C Toppino; Melissa H LaVan; Ryan T Iaconelli
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-10

5.  Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information.

Authors:  Jeri L Little; Elizabeth Ligon Bjork
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-10

6.  Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs.

Authors:  Tina Seabrooke; Chris J Mitchell; Andy J Wills; Timothy J Hollins
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-02

7.  Free recall enhances subsequent learning.

Authors:  Kathleen M Arnold; Kathleen B McDermott
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-06

8.  The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; David A Balota; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Desirable Difficulties in Vocabulary Learning.

Authors:  Robert A Bjork; Judith F Kroll
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  2015

10.  The role of interest in memory for trivia questions: An investigation with a large-scale database.

Authors:  Greta M Fastrich; Tyson Kerr; Alan D Castel; Kou Murayama
Journal:  Motiv Sci       Date:  2017-12-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.