The effects of free recall testing on subsequent source memory

Brewer, Gene A.; Marsh, Richard L.; Meeks, J. Thadeus; Clark-Foos, Arlo; Hicks, Jason L.

doi:10.1080/09658211003702163

Cited by 39 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of an effect of testing on PI contrasts with recent findings that testing reduces PI in free recall learning (e.g., Brewer et al, 2010;Szpunar et al, 2008). There are many differences between our experiment and their experiments.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…When the first list was tested, participants were better able to remember the most recent responses (i.e., D > B), but the opposite was true (i.e., D < B) when the first list was not tested. Recent investigations of PI (Brewer, Marsh, Meeks, Clark-Foos, & Hicks, 2010;Szpunar, McDermott, & Roediger, 2008) have shown that testing decreases PI in free recall learning. In contrast to experiments showing testing effects on PI, we only tested filler items, not the critical items that were used to examine the effects of PI.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experience with proactive interference diminishes its effects: mechanisms of change

Wahlheim

Jacoby

2010

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we examined the mechanisms by which prior experience with proactive interference (PI) diminished its effects. Cued recall tasks conforming to an A-B, A-D paradigm were used to induce PI effects. Experiment 1 showed that reduced PI was not due to a reduction in attention to the source of PI. Experiment 2 revealed that participants' awareness of PI effects on memory performance increased with experience, resulting in a shift in encoding processes. Experiment 3 demonstrated that changes in encoding provided additional support for recollection that further enhanced participants' ability to constrain their retrieval processing to the appropriate source of information at the time of test. These results can be interpreted as showing that experience with PI enhances awareness of its effects and allows individuals to adjust their learning and retrieval strategies to compensate for such effects.Keywords Proactive interference . Metacognition . Sourceconstrained retrieval . Memory training Proactive interference (PI) is a potent source of forgetting. For serial learning, Underwood (1957) reviewed experiments in which the effects of PI were examined and found that the probability of recall decreased dramatically from .80 when there was no preceding list to approximately .20 following 20 preceding lists. Paired-associate learning also shows large effects of PI (for a review, see Anderson & Neely, 1996). The question we ask in this article is whether participants are unaware of the effects of PI during a first encounter with PI but become aware of its effects and successfully implement procedures to diminish those effects during a second encounter with PI. Although the effects of PI are widely known by memory researchers, little has been done to investigate people's ability to diminish its effects. Findings of an ability to adapt learning in ways that diminish the effects of PI are important for gaining a better understanding of the effects of PI and, potentially, hold import for applied purposes.In commonplace situations, people show knowledge of PI effects by taking actions to avoid such effects. For example, in card games, it is common for the dealing of cards to pass around the table, creating the problem of remembering who dealt last so as to decide whose turn it currently is to deal. This problem is typically solved by playing with two decks of cards, with one of the decks being placed in front of the person who is to deal next while the other deck is being dealt. However, rather than being generally aware of effects of PI, such awareness might be restricted to particular situations. For card playing, it is likely that problems produced by PI were discovered as a result of experience in the situation, and only then were steps taken to eliminate its effects. Similarly, combating PI in a list-learning situation might depend on prior experience in the situation of a sort that makes people aware of its effects.To our knowledge, the only investigation of ability to diminish PI as a result of pri...

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experience with proactive interference diminishes its effects: mechanisms of change

Wahlheim

Jacoby

2010

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taken together, our results show that the testing effect on source memory is not a universal phenomenon (see also Brewer et al, 2010), and even more importantly, they highlight that variations in the complexity of the source test can produce empirical outcomes that suggest dramatically different, even opposite, conclusions. This complexity component is oftoverlooked in research on source monitoring (for notable exceptions, see Dobbins & McCarthy, 2008;Dodson & Johnson, 1993;R.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…In multi-list learning experiments, testing has repeatedly been found to augment later source retrieval. For example, testing can facilitate recollection of contextual information (Brewer, Marsh, Meeks, Clark-Foos, & Hicks, 2010;Chan & McDermott, 2007;Verde, 2004) and can insulate against the buildup of proactive interference (Jang & Huber, 2008;Pastotter, Schicker, Niedernhuber, & Bauml, 2011;Robbins & Irvin, 1976;Szpunar, McDermott, & Roediger, 2008). Pastotter et al proposed that testing promotes temporal (or list) segregation because performing retrieval between study cycles produces internal context change.…”

Section: Importance Of Source Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity

Chan

Wilford

Hughes

2012

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking an intervening test between learning episodes can enhance later source recollection. Paradoxically, testing can also increase people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect -a finding termed retrievalenhanced suggestibility (RES, Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). We conducted three experiments to examine this apparent contradiction. Experiment 1 extended the RES effect to a new set of materials. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that testing can produce opposite effects on memory suggestibility depending on the complexity of the source test. Specifically, retrieval facilitated source discriminations when the test contained only items with unique source origins. But when the source test included some items that had appeared in multiple sources, the intervening test actually increased source confusions. These results have implications for a wide variety of learning situations. We focused our discussion on eyewitness memory, source complexity, and reconsolidation. Taking an intervening test between learning episodes can enhance later source recollection.

show abstract

“…They have found that testing can yield better retention in the long run than restudying (Karpicke and Roediger 2007;Larsen et al 2013). One explanation offered for the testing effect is that it consolidates learning by strengthening the memory trace (e.g., Brewer et al 2010). Recent findings of a repeated testing effect on transfer items further suggest that there can also be a contribution to deep learning (e.g., Butler 2010;Dirkx et al 2014;McDaniel et al 2013).…”

Section: Demonstration-based-training (Dbt)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstration-based training (DBT) in the design of a video tutorial for software training

Meij

2016

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the design and effectiveness of a video tutorial for software training. In accordance with demonstration-based training, the tutorial consisted of a series of task demonstrations, with instructional features added to enhance learning. An experiment is reported in which a demonstration-only control condition was compared with a demonstration-with-review condition. The review videos provided a recap to support retention of the procedure. Strict viewing conditions were imposed during training. Both learning and motivation were assessed. Participants were 55 students from primary and secondary schools in Germany. The outcomes showed that both tutorials significantly contributed to development of procedural knowledge and to motivation, and that the review tutorial surpassed the control. The discussion addresses the role of user control. In addition, with the effectiveness of reviews apparently becoming better established, the need arises for measures that can reveal the effects of reviews on observational learning processes.

show abstract

The effects of free recall testing on subsequent source memory

Cited by 39 publications

References 17 publications

Experience with proactive interference diminishes its effects: mechanisms of change

Experience with proactive interference diminishes its effects: mechanisms of change

Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity

Demonstration-based training (DBT) in the design of a video tutorial for software training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About