A combination of restudy and retrieval practice maximizes retention of briefly encountered facts

Stefania R. Ashby, Dagmar Zeithamova
{"title":"A combination of restudy and retrieval practice maximizes retention of briefly encountered facts","authors":"Stefania R. Ashby, Dagmar Zeithamova","doi":"10.3389/fcogn.2023.1258955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Is retrieval practice always superior to restudy? In a classic study by Roediger and Karpicke, long-term retention of information contained in prose passages was found to be best when opportunities to restudy were replaced with opportunities to self-test. We were interested whether this striking benefit for repeated testing at the expense of any restudy replicates when study opportunities are brief, akin to a single mention of a fact in an academic lecture. We were also interested in whether restudying after a test would provide any additional benefits compared to restudying before test. Method In the current study, participants encountered academically relevant facts a total of three times; each time either studied (S) or self-tested (T). During study, participants predicted how likely they were to remember each fact in the future. During self-test, participants performed covert cued recall and self-reported their recall success. Final test followed immediately or after a delay (Experiment 1: 2 days, Experiment 2: 7 days). Results Contrary to prior work, long-term memory was superior for facts the were restudied in addition to self-tested (SST > STT = SSS). We further investigated whether restudy after a test (STS) provides additional benefits compared to restudy before test (SST). Restudying after a retrieval attempt provided an additional benefit compared to restudying before a retrieval attempt on an immediate test, but this benefit did not carry over a delay. Finally, exploratory analyses indicated that restudy after test improved the accuracy of participants' subjective predictions of encoding success. Discussion Together, our results qualify prior work on the benefits of repeated testing, indicating that balancing testing with repetition may allow for more information to be learned and retained. These findings offer new insights into the conditions that promote encoding and long-term retention, provide new constraints for existing cognitive theories of testing effects, and have practical implications for education.","PeriodicalId":94013,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cognition","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1258955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Is retrieval practice always superior to restudy? In a classic study by Roediger and Karpicke, long-term retention of information contained in prose passages was found to be best when opportunities to restudy were replaced with opportunities to self-test. We were interested whether this striking benefit for repeated testing at the expense of any restudy replicates when study opportunities are brief, akin to a single mention of a fact in an academic lecture. We were also interested in whether restudying after a test would provide any additional benefits compared to restudying before test. Method In the current study, participants encountered academically relevant facts a total of three times; each time either studied (S) or self-tested (T). During study, participants predicted how likely they were to remember each fact in the future. During self-test, participants performed covert cued recall and self-reported their recall success. Final test followed immediately or after a delay (Experiment 1: 2 days, Experiment 2: 7 days). Results Contrary to prior work, long-term memory was superior for facts the were restudied in addition to self-tested (SST > STT = SSS). We further investigated whether restudy after a test (STS) provides additional benefits compared to restudy before test (SST). Restudying after a retrieval attempt provided an additional benefit compared to restudying before a retrieval attempt on an immediate test, but this benefit did not carry over a delay. Finally, exploratory analyses indicated that restudy after test improved the accuracy of participants' subjective predictions of encoding success. Discussion Together, our results qualify prior work on the benefits of repeated testing, indicating that balancing testing with repetition may allow for more information to be learned and retained. These findings offer new insights into the conditions that promote encoding and long-term retention, provide new constraints for existing cognitive theories of testing effects, and have practical implications for education.
重新学习和检索练习相结合可以最大限度地保留简短遇到的事实
回顾练习总是优于再学习吗?在Roediger和Karpicke的一项经典研究中,当重新学习的机会被自我测试的机会所取代时,长期记忆散文段落中包含的信息被发现是最好的。我们感兴趣的是,如果学习机会很短暂,就像在学术讲座中只提到一个事实,那么重复测试所带来的显著好处是否会重复。我们还感兴趣的是,与考试前重新学习相比,考试后重新学习是否会提供任何额外的好处。方法在本研究中,被试共遇到三次学术相关事实;每次都是学习(S)或自我测试(T)。在研究中,参与者预测他们将来记住每个事实的可能性。在自我测试中,参与者进行隐蔽线索回忆,并自我报告他们的回忆成功。立即或延迟进行最终测试(实验1:2天,实验2:7天)。结果与之前的研究相反,长期记忆在重新研究和自测的事实上优于长期记忆(SST >STT = sss)。我们进一步调查了测试后再学习(STS)是否比测试前再学习(SST)提供了额外的好处。与在即时测试中进行检索尝试之前重新学习相比,在检索尝试后重新学习提供了额外的好处,但这种好处并没有延迟。最后,探索性分析表明,测试后的再学习提高了参与者对编码成功的主观预测的准确性。总之,我们的结果验证了之前关于重复测试的好处的工作,表明平衡测试和重复可能允许更多的信息被学习和保留。这些发现为促进编码和长期记忆的条件提供了新的见解,为现有的测试效应认知理论提供了新的约束,并对教育具有实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信