The Testing Effect and Its Relation to Working Memory Capacity and Personality Characteristics

Abstract

Retrieval practice is known to lead to better retention of a to-be-learned material than restudy (i.e., the testing effect). However, few studies have investigated retrieval practice in relation to working memory capacity (WMC) and personality characteristics such as grittiness (Grit) and need for cognition (NFC). In two experiments, we examined retrieval practice and restudy of Swahili–Swedish word pairs in relation to individual differences in Grit and NFC. In Experiment 1, using a between-subjects design, a significant main effect of retention interval was qualified by a Group × Retention Interval interaction. However, there were no effects of Grit or NFC. In Experiment 2, a within-subjects design was used, and a measure of WMC was included. The analyses revealed a testing effect; but again, WMC, Grit, and NFC were not significantly associated with performance. These results indicate that retrieval practice levels out the playing field regarding WMC, NFC, and Grit.

Predicting Visuospatial and Verbal Working Memory by Individual Differences in E-Learning Activities

“…In the present study, we found several single features that significantly predicted verbal WM performance. One of those features was multiple-choice quizzes, indicating that individuals with higher quiz accuracies performed better in the Digit span (Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al, 2014;Bertilsson et al, 2017). Reflecting this finding to the multicomponent model of WM (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974), one could speculate whether this association mirrors differences in how effectively the subvocal rehearsal and the phonological loop is utilized, both when reading the to-be-learned materials, as well as when performing the WM task.…”

“…It has, for instance, been shown that low WM individuals have poorer performances in school subjects such as arithmetics (Gathercole and Pickering, 2001;Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004;Raghubar et al, 2010), and reading comprehension (Daneman and Carpenter, 1980;Turner and Engle, 1989). It has also been found that those with poorer WM performance tend to perform worse in quiz tasks assessed immediately following the learning phase (Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al, 2014;Agarwal et al, 2017;Bertilsson et al, 2017), including poorer performances in final course exams (Turner and Engle, 1989;Aronen et al, 2005;Cowan et al, 2005). As for the more specific differences in learning activities, WM has shown to predict how frequently the learner goes back and repeat earlier learned materials such that those with poorer WM tend to go back and read earlier material more frequently as compared to those with better WM performance (Rosen and Engle, 1997;Kemper et al, 2004).…”

“…Quiz accuracy pertains to features capturing how accurately one has been responding on quizzes related to the to-be-learned materials. As quiz accuracy measures have been linked to WM performance in previous work (Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al, 2014;Bertilsson et al, 2017), we deemed it important to extract such features for the present study as well. Study activity refers to features capturing how active the student has been on the platform (e.g., time spent in the system, the number of reading sessions, number of quizzes taken) whereas Within-session activity refers to features capturing student activities within a session (e.g., average reading-and quiz times per session).…”

Time on task matters most in video game expertise

“…Recent research on skill acquisition and performance has increased the amount of interest in the combination of cognitive measures and measures of personality [ 27 ]. Several different perspectives apply to the understanding of personality ; thus, there are many definitions and theories encompassing personality, including cognitive, humanistic and sociocultural ones [ 28 ].…”

The forward testing effect is reliable and independent of learners’ working memory capacity

“…WMC is an interesting individual-differences variable in cognitive psychology because it accounts for a substantial portion of variance in a person's general fluid intelligence and executive function (see Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003;Foster et al, 2015;McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010). The majority of these studies found no (direct) relationship between WMC and the backward testing effect effect (Agarwal, Finley, Rose, & Roediger, 2017;Aslan & Bäuml, 2011) or test-potentiated learning (Bertilsson, Wiklund-Hörnqvist, Stenlund, & Jonsson, 2017;Brewer & Unsworth, 2012;Minear, Coane, Boland, Cooney, & Albat, 2018;Tsu & Pu, 2012;Wiklund-Hörnqvist, Jonsson, & Nyberg, 2014; but see Agarwal et al, 2017). Notably, the study by Tse and Pu (2012) showed that a significant proportion of variance in test-potentiated learning could be predicted by an interaction between participants' WMC and test anxiety scores.…”