{"title":"EXPRESS: Multiple-Choice Testing: Controlled and Automatic Influences of Retrieval Practice in an Educational Context.","authors":"Aeshah Alamri, Phil Higham","doi":"10.1177/17470218251327158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies have shown that taking an initial multiple-choice (MC) test produced both automatic influences (i.e., those that operate quickly, without effort, and requiring few attentional resources) and controlled influences (influences that are slower, applied more deliberately, sometimes oppose automatic processes, and which require more attentional resources) on performance in a subsequent test. In this study, we examined the involvement of automatic and controlled processes on performance with MC questions that are related to earlier practice questions, but which have different correct answers. In Experiment 1, which was conducted online with MTurk, automatic influences tended to dominate responding despite using educational materials (SAT questions). Including repeated items in the final test (Experiment 1, 4) and increasing the time lags between questions (Experiment 2, 4) increased the automatic influence. However, in a genuine educational environment (university classroom), controlled influences tended to dominate responding instead, similar to what has been observed with cued recall (CR) final tests, but only when there are no repeated items. These controlled influences were enhanced by presenting the related questions back-to-back in the testing sequence (Experiment 2) but were unaffected by feedback on the initial test (Experiment 3). We conclude that performance on both MC and CR tests are affected by both automatic and controlled influences of retrieval practice, but that one type of influence will override the other depending on the presence of repeated items, the specific testing format, and examinees' investment in scoring well.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"17470218251327158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218251327158","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that taking an initial multiple-choice (MC) test produced both automatic influences (i.e., those that operate quickly, without effort, and requiring few attentional resources) and controlled influences (influences that are slower, applied more deliberately, sometimes oppose automatic processes, and which require more attentional resources) on performance in a subsequent test. In this study, we examined the involvement of automatic and controlled processes on performance with MC questions that are related to earlier practice questions, but which have different correct answers. In Experiment 1, which was conducted online with MTurk, automatic influences tended to dominate responding despite using educational materials (SAT questions). Including repeated items in the final test (Experiment 1, 4) and increasing the time lags between questions (Experiment 2, 4) increased the automatic influence. However, in a genuine educational environment (university classroom), controlled influences tended to dominate responding instead, similar to what has been observed with cued recall (CR) final tests, but only when there are no repeated items. These controlled influences were enhanced by presenting the related questions back-to-back in the testing sequence (Experiment 2) but were unaffected by feedback on the initial test (Experiment 3). We conclude that performance on both MC and CR tests are affected by both automatic and controlled influences of retrieval practice, but that one type of influence will override the other depending on the presence of repeated items, the specific testing format, and examinees' investment in scoring well.
期刊介绍:
Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling.
QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form.
The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.