Literature DB >> 24619791

Testing effects in mixed- versus pure-list designs.

Christopher A Rowland1, Megan K Littrell-Baez, Amanda E Sensenig, Edward L DeLosh.   

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated the role of list composition in the testing effect. Across three experiments, participants learned items through study and initial testing or study and restudy. List composition was manipulated, such that tested and restudied items appeared either intermixed in the same lists (mixed lists) or in separate lists (pure lists). In Experiment 1, half of the participants received mixed lists and half received pure lists. In Experiment 2, all participants were given both mixed and pure lists. Experiment 3 followed Erlebacher's (Psychological Bulletin, 84, 212-219, 1977) method, such that mixed lists, pure tested lists, and pure restudied lists were given to independent groups. Across all three experiments, the final recall results revealed significant testing effects for both mixed and pure lists, with no reliable difference in the magnitude of the testing advantage across list designs. This finding suggests that the testing effect is not subject to a key boundary condition-list design-that impacts other memory phenomena, including the generation effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24619791     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-014-0404-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  25 in total

1.  The influence of retrieval on retention.

Authors:  M Carrier; H Pashler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-11

2.  The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon.

Authors:  Colin M MacLeod; Nigel Gopie; Kathleen L Hourihan; Karen R Neary; Jason D Ozubko
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Dissociative effects of generation on item and order retention.

Authors:  J S Nairne; G L Riegler; M Serra
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Rehearsal strategies can enlarge or diminish the spacing effect: pure versus mixed lists and encoding strategy.

Authors:  Peter F Delaney; Peter P J L Verkoeijen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  The effects of tests on learning and forgetting.

Authors:  Shana K Carpenter; Harold Pashler; John T Wixted; Edward Vul
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-03

6.  Comparing the effects of testing and restudying on recollection in recognition memory.

Authors:  Peter P J L Verkoeijen; Huib K Tabbers; Marije L Verhage
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2011

7.  Testing effects for common versus proper names.

Authors:  Amanda E Sensenig; Megan K Littrell-Baez; Edward L Delosh
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2011-08

8.  Design controversies and the generation effect: support for an item-order hypothesis.

Authors:  M Serra; J S Nairne
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-01

9.  Some effects of remembering on forgetting.

Authors:  W N Runquist
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1983-11

10.  The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests.

Authors:  Andrew C Butler; Jeffrey D Karpicke; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2007-12
View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format.

Authors:  Magdalena Abel; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-01

2.  Assessing Boundary Conditions of the Testing Effect: On the Relative Efficacy of Covert vs. Overt Retrieval.

Authors:  Max L Sundqvist; Timo Mäntylä; Fredrik U Jönsson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-06-21
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.