Theme 2: Improving Learning and Retention
Roediger & Karpicke (2006) - Test-Enhanced Learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention
Abstract
Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later retention (the testing effect). The authors
studied this effect with educationally relevant materials and investigated whether testing facilitates learning only because tests
offer an opportunity to restudy material.
2 experiments: students read passages and take 1/3 immediate free recall tests, without feedback, or restudied the material the
same number of times the other students did the tests. After 5 min/2 days/1 week, a final test was given.
After 5 min, the repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing
On delayed tests, prior testing produced substantially greater retention than studying, even though repeated studying increased
students' confidence in their ability to remember the material. Testing is a powerful means of improving learning, not just
assessing.
Introduction
Tests are usually considered devices of assessment. They are often given infrequently and perceived as a bother. The authors
argue that testing has a powerful effect on future retention. If students are tested on material and successfully recall or
recognise it, they will remember it better in the future than when they had not been tested - the testing effect. Most
experiment on the testing effect has been done on verbal learning tradition using word lists or picture lists.
The aim of the current study is to investigate whether the testing effect under educationally relevant conditions, using prose
materials and free-recall tests without feedback (akin to essay tests), instead of using multiple choices of cued recall. A second
purpose was to determine whether testing facilitates learning beyond the benefits of restudying the material (control group)
Students studied short passages covering general scientific topics.
Exp 1 - studied once and tested on material or studied again before taking a final retention task after 5 min/ 2 days/ 1 week
Exp 2 - studied once and took 3 tests, or studied 3 times and took 1 test, or studied 4 times, before taking a final test after 5
min/2 days/1 week.
They predicted that performance on immediate retention would increase with the number of study opportunities (short-term
benefits), but that taking tests soon after studying would promote superior retention on delayed tests relative to repeatedly
studying material. This would indicate that testing had a positive effect on long-term retention above and beyond any effect of
re-presentation of the material during the test.
Experiment 1
• Method
o 180 subjects
o Materials: 2 prose passages divided into 30 idea for scoring purposes.
o Design: 2x3, learning condition (restudy versus test) was within-subjects, and delay of final test (5 min, 2 days,
1 week) was between-subjects. Order of learning conditions and order of passages were counterbalanced
across subjects.
o Procedure:
• Phase 1: 4 7-minute periods, in which they studied (1), restudy or take a test (2,3,4). The testing was
just writing down what you remember. They then solved multiplication problems for 2 minutes
between periods and for 5 minutes after final period.
• Phase 2: after a 5-min, 2-day or 1-week retention interval, students were asked to recall the passages
they learned in phase 1. Retention task lasted 10 minutes and had to mark every minute on the
paper.
• Results and discussion
o Scoring: 40 tests were scored by two raters, with high inter-rater reliability.
o Initial test: approximately 70% of the passage was recalled, with no difference for the two passages or the
counterbalancing orders
o Final test: after 5 minutes, students who studied twice had recalled more than subjects who studied once and
taken a test. This pattern was reversed for the delayed tests of 2 days and 1 week (long-term retention);
participants who studied and then (initial) tested scored better than participants who studied twice.
A 2x3 ANOVA with learning condition (restudying/testing) and retention interval (5-min, 2-days, 1-week) as
independent variables.
Significant main effect of testing versus restudying; overall, initial testing scored better than restudying.
, Significant main effect of retention; forgetting occurred as retention interval grew longer. Significant
interaction; restudying was better on 5-min, testing was better on 2-day and 1-week.
These were confirmed by post-hoc analyses.
Another interesting finding from the figure: initial testing participants did as good on the 1-week test as the
restudy participants did on the 2-day test.
So, additional studying aided performance on immediate retention tests, but prior testing improved performance
on delayed tests (even with no feedback!) - this testing effect would be due to some other process that has
positive effects on retention.
Experiment 2
In this experiment they investigated the effects of repeated studying and repeated testing on retention.
3 conditions: students studied a passage 4 times and did no test, students studied 3 times and took one test, or students studied
once and took 3 tests. After that a final retention test, either 5-minutes or 1 week later.
They also did a questionnaire on the content of the passage and how they thought they would remember it.
• Method
o 180 students, same passages
o 3x2 between subjects, 2 passages - 3 conditions (SSSS, SSST, STTT)
o Procedure: similar to exp 1. again in two sessions, in small groups (4 or less)
• Phase 1: SSSS condition - 4 5-minute study periods, SSST- 3 study periods and one test, STTT - 1 study
period and 3 consecutive recall tests. During study periods they had 5 minutes and had to mark how
often they read the passages. The tests lasted 10 minutes. They did multiplication tasks for 2 minutes
between periods and for 5 minutes after final period. At the end they completed a questionnaire
(how interesting, how readable, how well to remember).
• Phase 2: identical to initial recall tests
• Results and discussion
o Readings of passage: across all conditions, participants were able to read the passage 3.5 times during a 5
minute study period.
o Initial tests: in the STTT condition, participants recalled about 70% on the initial tests, and in the SSST recalled
77% on the initial tests (significantly more that in the STTT condition).
o Questionnaire: no differences between the passages or between the 5-minute or 1-week groups. Students in
the SSSS condition rated passages as less interesting than in SSST or STTT condition (increased boredom).
Participants in the SSSS condition thought they would remember it better than participants in the SSST or STTT
condition. Readability was the same.
o Final tests: the pattern of the results replicated that of experiment 1.
Roediger & Karpicke (2006) - Test-Enhanced Learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention
Abstract
Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later retention (the testing effect). The authors
studied this effect with educationally relevant materials and investigated whether testing facilitates learning only because tests
offer an opportunity to restudy material.
2 experiments: students read passages and take 1/3 immediate free recall tests, without feedback, or restudied the material the
same number of times the other students did the tests. After 5 min/2 days/1 week, a final test was given.
After 5 min, the repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing
On delayed tests, prior testing produced substantially greater retention than studying, even though repeated studying increased
students' confidence in their ability to remember the material. Testing is a powerful means of improving learning, not just
assessing.
Introduction
Tests are usually considered devices of assessment. They are often given infrequently and perceived as a bother. The authors
argue that testing has a powerful effect on future retention. If students are tested on material and successfully recall or
recognise it, they will remember it better in the future than when they had not been tested - the testing effect. Most
experiment on the testing effect has been done on verbal learning tradition using word lists or picture lists.
The aim of the current study is to investigate whether the testing effect under educationally relevant conditions, using prose
materials and free-recall tests without feedback (akin to essay tests), instead of using multiple choices of cued recall. A second
purpose was to determine whether testing facilitates learning beyond the benefits of restudying the material (control group)
Students studied short passages covering general scientific topics.
Exp 1 - studied once and tested on material or studied again before taking a final retention task after 5 min/ 2 days/ 1 week
Exp 2 - studied once and took 3 tests, or studied 3 times and took 1 test, or studied 4 times, before taking a final test after 5
min/2 days/1 week.
They predicted that performance on immediate retention would increase with the number of study opportunities (short-term
benefits), but that taking tests soon after studying would promote superior retention on delayed tests relative to repeatedly
studying material. This would indicate that testing had a positive effect on long-term retention above and beyond any effect of
re-presentation of the material during the test.
Experiment 1
• Method
o 180 subjects
o Materials: 2 prose passages divided into 30 idea for scoring purposes.
o Design: 2x3, learning condition (restudy versus test) was within-subjects, and delay of final test (5 min, 2 days,
1 week) was between-subjects. Order of learning conditions and order of passages were counterbalanced
across subjects.
o Procedure:
• Phase 1: 4 7-minute periods, in which they studied (1), restudy or take a test (2,3,4). The testing was
just writing down what you remember. They then solved multiplication problems for 2 minutes
between periods and for 5 minutes after final period.
• Phase 2: after a 5-min, 2-day or 1-week retention interval, students were asked to recall the passages
they learned in phase 1. Retention task lasted 10 minutes and had to mark every minute on the
paper.
• Results and discussion
o Scoring: 40 tests were scored by two raters, with high inter-rater reliability.
o Initial test: approximately 70% of the passage was recalled, with no difference for the two passages or the
counterbalancing orders
o Final test: after 5 minutes, students who studied twice had recalled more than subjects who studied once and
taken a test. This pattern was reversed for the delayed tests of 2 days and 1 week (long-term retention);
participants who studied and then (initial) tested scored better than participants who studied twice.
A 2x3 ANOVA with learning condition (restudying/testing) and retention interval (5-min, 2-days, 1-week) as
independent variables.
Significant main effect of testing versus restudying; overall, initial testing scored better than restudying.
, Significant main effect of retention; forgetting occurred as retention interval grew longer. Significant
interaction; restudying was better on 5-min, testing was better on 2-day and 1-week.
These were confirmed by post-hoc analyses.
Another interesting finding from the figure: initial testing participants did as good on the 1-week test as the
restudy participants did on the 2-day test.
So, additional studying aided performance on immediate retention tests, but prior testing improved performance
on delayed tests (even with no feedback!) - this testing effect would be due to some other process that has
positive effects on retention.
Experiment 2
In this experiment they investigated the effects of repeated studying and repeated testing on retention.
3 conditions: students studied a passage 4 times and did no test, students studied 3 times and took one test, or students studied
once and took 3 tests. After that a final retention test, either 5-minutes or 1 week later.
They also did a questionnaire on the content of the passage and how they thought they would remember it.
• Method
o 180 students, same passages
o 3x2 between subjects, 2 passages - 3 conditions (SSSS, SSST, STTT)
o Procedure: similar to exp 1. again in two sessions, in small groups (4 or less)
• Phase 1: SSSS condition - 4 5-minute study periods, SSST- 3 study periods and one test, STTT - 1 study
period and 3 consecutive recall tests. During study periods they had 5 minutes and had to mark how
often they read the passages. The tests lasted 10 minutes. They did multiplication tasks for 2 minutes
between periods and for 5 minutes after final period. At the end they completed a questionnaire
(how interesting, how readable, how well to remember).
• Phase 2: identical to initial recall tests
• Results and discussion
o Readings of passage: across all conditions, participants were able to read the passage 3.5 times during a 5
minute study period.
o Initial tests: in the STTT condition, participants recalled about 70% on the initial tests, and in the SSST recalled
77% on the initial tests (significantly more that in the STTT condition).
o Questionnaire: no differences between the passages or between the 5-minute or 1-week groups. Students in
the SSSS condition rated passages as less interesting than in SSST or STTT condition (increased boredom).
Participants in the SSSS condition thought they would remember it better than participants in the SSST or STTT
condition. Readability was the same.
o Final tests: the pattern of the results replicated that of experiment 1.
