The Role of Opportunities for Recall in Learning to Retrieve

Halff, Henry M.

doi:10.2307/1421871

Cited by 51 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the forgetting assumption is better treated as an empirical question: If there is substantial forgetting, fit will fail for the basic model, and forgetting parameters can then be introduced to rectify the situation. Second, in previous RTTT experiments like the ones reported here (e.g., Halff, 1977;Payne, 1987), there was little or no evidence of forgetting between consecutive free recall tests (although forgetting could easily be induced by imposing long delays between consecutive tests).…”

mentioning

confidence: 47%

“…Memory theorists have often treated associative recall as though it were a direct-access task (e.g., Greeno, James, Da Polito, & Polson, 1971;Underwood, 1953) and free recall as though it were a reconstruction task (e.g., Ackerman, 1985;Halff, 1977), a distinction that receives empirical support from the familiar finding that increasing the degree of semantic relatedness between targets (e.g., by presenting targets that are same-category exemplars) impairs associative recall but improves free recall (for a review, see Hunt & McDaniel, 1993). On its face, associative recall seems to slant retrieval toward direct access because it (a) provides a unique retrieval cue for each target (rather than global cues that span many targets) that is neither semantically or associatively related to the target, (b) provides retrieval cues that reinstate part of the surface information that is stored in verbatim traces (namely, the cue member of each pair), and (c) requires that targets only be recalled in response to the specific cues with which they were paired at study.…”

Section: Experiments 4: Further Simultaneous Manipulation Of Direct Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(4) and (5) are identical, leaving p(cc) ϩ p(nn) ϩ 2p(cn) ϭ 1, an expression in which only two probabilities are free because probabilities must sum to one. However, identifiability can be achieved with a simple extension of the RTT procedure that has been used in free-recall studies by Halff (1977) and others (for a review, see Batchelder & Riefer, 1999). Three independent recall tests are administered, which generate eight performance outcomes per target and seven free empirical probabilities (namely, any seven probabilities from the set [p(ccc), p(ccn), .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dual-Retrieval Processes in Free and Associative Recall

Brainerd

Wright

Reyna

et al. 2002

Journal of Memory and Language

102

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 47%

Section: Experiments 4: Further Simultaneous Manipulation Of Direct Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dual-Retrieval Processes in Free and Associative Recall

Brainerd

Wright

Reyna

et al. 2002

Journal of Memory and Language

102

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some researchers have suggested that a retrieval attempt provides the learner with knowledge of the recallability or degree of recallability of target items (Halff, 1977;Skaggs, 1920;Thompson, Wenger, & Bartling, 1978). This knowledge can then be used to guide future encoding of the target items.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of retrieval on retention

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments tested the hypothesis that successful retrieval of an item from memory affects retention only because the retrieval provides an additional presentation of the target item. Two methods oflearning paired associates were compared. In the pure study trial (pure ST condition) method, both items of a pair were presented simultaneously for study. In the test trial/study trial (ITST condition) method, subjects attempted to retrieve the response term during a period in which only the stimulus term was present (and the response term of the pair was presented after a 5-sec delay). Final retention of target items was tested with cued-recall tests. In Experiment 1, there was a reliable advantage in final testing for nonsense-syllable/number pairs in the ITST condition over pairs in the pure ST condition. In Experiment 2, the same result was obtained with EskimolEnglish word pairs. This benefit of the ITST condition was not apparently different for final retrieval after 5 min or after 24 h. Experiments 3 and 4 ruled out two artifactual explanations of the ITST advantage observed in the first two experiments. Because performing a memory retrieval (ITST condition) led to better performance than pure study (pure ST condition), the results reject the hypothesis that a successful retrieval is beneficial only to the extent that it provides another study experience.Inserting a recall test into the learning sequence increases the likelihood that the learner will remember something during a later test. This principle has been demonstrated empirically by many researchers, including

show abstract

“…Recently, in support of the MPT heuristic, Dunlosky and Serra (2006) reported that when people are asked about how they make their Trial 2 JOLs, they report an explicit use of memory for their prior test performance. Others have shown that a test can change encoding strategies on a subsequent trial (Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2000;Gardiner, Passmore, Herriot, & Klee, 1977;Halff, 1977;LaPorte & Voss, 1974), and that recall performance on the prior trial is strongly correlated with JOL ratings on a subsequent trial Hertzog, Dixon & Hultsch, 1990;King, et al, 1980;Lovelace, 1984;Thiede, 1999). Lately, showed that an item's Trial 1 test performance is a better predictor of its Trial 2 JOL, than is its Trial 2 test performance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Finn

Metcalfe

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Underconfidence with Practice (UPW) effect (Koriat, Sheffer & Ma'ayan, 2002), found in multitrial learning, is marked by a pattern of underconfidence accompanied by an increase in resolution between the judgments and test on and after the second trial. We tested whether the memory for past test (MPT) heuristic could explain the resolution and calibration effects. To selectively alter Trial 1 test performance, and hence MPT, we manipulated the number of repetitions (Experiment 1) or the study time (Experiment 2) on Trial 1, but then the manipulation was reversed on Trial 2, thereby equating final performance. Despite equivalent Trial 2 recall performance, Trial 2 JOLs reflected the manipulated Trial 1 test performance, providing support for the MPT hypothesis. Follow up experiments tested alternative explanations. We found that people could remember past test and that use of this information would produce both underconfidence and improved resolution. In contrast, neither memory for Trial 1 encoding fluency nor memory for Trial 1 JOLs was able to explain both aspects of the UWP effect. These experiments support the proposal that people use the Memory for Past Test heuristic to make second trial immediate JOLs, and that its use can account for the UWP effect.

show abstract

The Role of Opportunities for Recall in Learning to Retrieve

Cited by 51 publications

References 32 publications

Dual-Retrieval Processes in Free and Associative Recall

Dual-Retrieval Processes in Free and Associative Recall

The influence of retrieval on retention

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About