Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning

Carpenter, Shana K.; Pashler, Harold

doi:10.3758/bf03194092

Cited by 120 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, when subjects were given 5 s to try to retrieve the English equivalent of an Eskimo word, and then saw both words for 5 more seconds, later memory performance was better than when the English and Eskimo words were both available for 10 s (Carrier & Pashler, 1992). This benefit of testing over restudying-henceforth, the testing effect, also sometimes referred to as retrieval practice-has been found with learning of facts (McDaniel & Fisher, 1991), of face-name pairs (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2005), and even of visuospatial information (Carpenter & Pashler, 2007;Kang, 2010; see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006, for a review). The present article asks whether the benefits of testing are confined to tasks requiring literal reproduction or, rather, generalize to more complex forms of learning, such as function learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Effects of testing on learning of functions

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is learning of a complex functional relationship enhanced by trying to predict what output will go with a given input, as compared to studying an input-output pair? We examined learning of a bilinear function and transfer to new items outside the trained range. Subjects either saw the input-output pairs (study-only condition) or attempted to guess the output and then saw the pair (test/study condition). The total study times were equated, and motivation was enhanced with a monetary bonus. Performance was markedly better for the test/study condition, both within the trained range and in the transfer test. This benefit of testing during training was observed on a criterial test administered shortly after training. Testing has long been shown to enhance the explicit learning and retention of verbal material; our present findings reveal a novel domain for which testing can also be advantageous-that is, function learning.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Effects of testing on learning of functions

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These experiments show that covert retrieval benefits retention (Carpenter & Pashler, 2007;Kang, 2010;Orlando & Hayward, 1978;see too Izawa, 1976, for related research). However, these experiments did not address the issue of whether covert retrieval benefits retention to the same degree as overt retrieval.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Covert Retrieval Practice Benefits Retention as Much as Overt Retrieval Practice

Smith¹,

Roediger²

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many experiments provide evidence that practicing retrieval benefits retention relative to conditions of no retrieval practice. Nearly all prior research has employed retrieval practice requiring overt responses, but a few experiments have shown that covert retrieval also produces retention advantages relative to control conditions. However, direct comparisons between overt and covert retrieval are scarce: Does covert retrieval-thinking of but not producing responses-on a first test produce the same benefit as overt retrieval on a criterial test given later? We report 4 experiments that address this issue by comparing retention on a second test following overt or covert retrieval on a first test. In Experiment 1 we used a procedure designed to ensure that subjects would retrieve on covert as well as overt test trials and found equivalent testing effects in the 2 cases. In Experiment 2 we replicated these effects using a procedure that more closely mirrored natural retrieval processes. In Experiment 3 we showed that overt and covert retrieval produced equivalent testing effects after a 2-day delay. Finally, in Experiment 4 we showed that covert retrieval benefits retention more than restudying. We conclude that covert retrieval practice is as effective as overt retrieval practice, a conclusion that contravenes hypotheses in the literature proposing that overt responding is better. This outcome has an important educational implication: Students can learn as much from covert self-testing as they would from overt responding.

show abstract

“…More specifically, subjects explicitly retrieve the items by writing down their responses, alternatively saying them out loud. Covert retrieval on the other hand is less used in studies of the testing effect (e.g., Carpenter et al, 2006;Carpenter & Pashler, 2007;Carpenter, Pashler, Wixted &Vul, 2008). This procedure shares much with the Overt retrieval procedure because the students are explicitly instructed to test memory, but they are not asked or allowed to output their responses in any way (e.g., by writing it down or saying it aloud).…”

Section: The Difference Between Overt and Covert Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although no direct comparison has been made between the two procedures, some few studies have used a Covert procedure (e.g., Carpenter, Pashler & Vul, 2006;Carpenter & Pashler, 2007;Carpenter et al, 2008). For example, Carpenter and Pashler (2007) examined whether Covert testing can enhance learning of visuospatial information in maps.…”

Section: The Difference Between Overt and Covert Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cognitive researchers have demonstrated that learning occurs during testing and that repeated testing can, under some circumstances, improve memory retrieval at a later memory recall more than an equal amount of repeated studying does (e.g., Butler, 2010;Carpenter & Pashler, 2007;Carpenter, Pashler & Cepeda, 2009;Karpicke & Roediger, 2008;Leeming, 2002;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006;Rohrer & Pashler, 2010;Wheeler, Ewers & Buoanno, 2003). It is well known that elaborative study is beneficial for subsequent recall.…”

Section: Does Overt Memory Testing Lead To Better Learning Than Covermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation