The testing effect, collaborative learning, and retrieval-induced facilitation in a classroom setting

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to investigate aspects of the test effect in a tertiary education setting. During weekly tutorial sessions first year psychology students watched a psychobiology video (Phase 1), followed by different video-related activities (Phase 2). In the tutorial 1 week later, students took an unexpected test (Phase 3). In Phase 2 of Study 1, students completed a quiz in small groups (group quiz) or individually (individual quiz), highlighted the video transcript (re-study), or did nothing further (no-activity). Group quiz performance was superior to individual quiz in both Phase 2 and Phase 3. In Phase 3 individual quiz students performed better than no-activity students, but not better than restudy students. In exploring the individual testing effect further, Phase 2 of Study 2 included quiz (individual), restudy, and no-activity conditions. Quiz participants were presented with one (target) of two sets of questions, whereas restudy participants were presented with equivalent statements. During Phase 3, all participants answered both sets of questions (target and related). Quiz performance was superior to restudy and no-activity performance on both target and related material, supporting the retrieval-induced facilitation explanation of the testing effect. Implications of the current research for assessment practices in classroom settings are discussed, and directions for future research are indicated.

Effect of Repeated Testing on the Development of Secondary Language Proficiency

“…The result of better performance due to repeated testing gives support to a bulk of previous literature on the testing effect (see Bangert-Drowns, Kulik & Kulik, 1991;Cranney et al, 2009;Johnson & Mayer, 2009;Leeming, 2002;McDaniel et al, 2007;Vojdanoska, Cranney & Newell, 2009;see also Glover 1989). Although the routine of repeated testing cannot be the philosopher's stone which promises to turn the dust into gold, it may nevertheless enrich the arsenal of the wise teacher willing to raise the standard in the classroom.…”

“…On the basis of previous results (e.g., Cranney et al, 2009;Johnson & Mayer, 2009;Karpicke & Roediger,2008;Leeming, 2002;McDaniel et al, 2007;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a;2006b;Vojdanoska, Cranney & Newell, 2009), the statistical hypothesis is one-sided: the alternative hypothesis is H 1 : The gain score is higher in the EG than in the CG.…”

Long-term effects of testing on the recall of nontested materials

“…This interest stems mainly from the fact that testing has been established as one of the most powerful memory enhancers available Karpicke & Roediger, 2008;McDaniel, Roediger et al, 2007). Echoing this general idea, recent research (e.g., Chan, 2009;Chan et al, 2006;Cranney et al, 2009;Pilotti et al, 2009) has reported that testing can enhance retention of both the tested and nontested-related materials. In the current experiment, I have demonstrated that the benefits of RIFA are long-lived.…”

Effect of Repeated Testing to the Development of Vocabulary, Nominal Structures and Verbal Morphology

“…Nevertheless, many studies in various university courses have found a positive connection between the testing and external test results (see Metsämuuronen, 2013;Vojdanoska, Cranney & Newell, 2009;Cranney et al, 2009;Johnson & Mayer, 2009;McDaniel et al, 2007;Leeming, 2002). Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, and Kulik (1991) found, in their meta-analysis, that 83% of the studies showed a positive effect of frequent testing.…”

“…The testing was of a static type: no feedback was given to the students. Because of convincing previous results (see Metsämuuronen, 2013;Vojdanoska, Cranney & Newell, 2009;Johnson & Mayer, 2009;Cranney et al, 2009;McDaniel et al, 2007;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a;2006b;Leeming, 2002) the alternative hypothesis is kept one-sided: the gain score in the EG is higher than in the CG.…”