Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval

Abstract

If the mnemonic benefits of testing are to be widely realized in real-world learning circumstances, people must appreciate the value of testing and choose to utilize testing during self-guided learning. Yet metacognitive judgments do not appear to reflect the enhancement provided by testing Karpicke & Roediger (Science 319:966-968, 2008).

Implementing Test Enhanced Learning: Swedish Teacher Students’ Perception of Quizzing

“…Therefore, in terms of these mnemonic benefits of testing, several researchers (e.g., Agarwal et al, 2014;Kornell & Bjork, 2007) have postulated that non-compliance with memory enhancement implicates that the testing effect is not properly realised. This implementation issue is not unique to the present study but aligns with other findings (e.g., Bjork et al, 2013;Tullis et al, 2013). Because test enhanced learning has two focal effects: greater retention of the retrieved material (the direct effects), and the potential to improve study strategies (the indirect effects), it is for educational purpose imperative to not forget the full application.…”

“…In the present study, 35% of the teacher students reported that they studied more for the class where quizzing was introduced (Table 1). In keeping with this, several other researchers (e.g., Bjork et al, 2013;Kornell & Son, 2009;Tullis et al, 2013) have argued that many learners only recognise the indirect effects of test enhanced learning (i.e., means of assessing, or diagnostic tool) but not the direct (mnemonic) effects it has on improving memory retention. Such misconceptions about learning through retrieval practices is discernible in Table 4, where more than half (63%, 57%, and 52%), and 42% judged those second benefits as top four reasons pursuing learning.…”

Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners

“…Learners seem to make decisions about study activities that have effective immediate consequences for learning but fail to incorporate activities that benefit long-term learning at the expense of immediate learning (Nelson, Dunlosky, Graf, & Narens, 1994;Son, 2004;Son & Metcalfe, 2000;Tullis, Finley, & Benjamin, 2012). Learners succeed at effectively allocating study time across a set of heterogeneously difficult items (Tullis & Benjamin, 2011) and judiciously choosing which items they should restudy (Kornell & Metcalfe, 2006;Nelson et al, 1994) but do not always effectively distribute repetitions of items in time (Benjamin & Bird, 2006) and rarely utilize self-testing during learning to improve final memory performance (Karpicke, 2009).…”

Scheduling Scaffolding: The Extent and Arrangement of Assistance During Training Impacts Test Performance

“…For example, participants in the never present condition thought that they would do better during test than those in the faded condition, whereas actual test performance was better in the latter than in the former condition. Like other dissociations between performance and metacognition (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006;Simon & Bjork, 2001;Tullis, Finley, & Benjamin, 2013), this dissociation suggests caution in letting learners choose their own training regime. Even when they are trying to choose a regime to optimize future performance, learners may choose suboptimally.…”