|
Published in the March 2006 issue of the journal Psychological Science, Roediger's
study is co-authored with graduate Student Jeffrey D. Karpicke, a research colleague
in the Department of Psychology in Arts & Sciences.
In two experiments, one group of Students studied a prose passage for about five
minutes and then took either one or three immediate free-recall tests, receiving
no feedback on the accuracy of answers. Another group received no tests in this
phase, but was allowed another five minutes to restudy the passage each time their
counterparts were involved in a testing session. Henry L. Roediger III
After phase one, each Student was asked to take a final retention test presented
at one of three intervals -- five minutes, two days or one week later. When the
final test was presented five minutes after the last study or testing session, the
study-study-study-study (SSSS) group initially scored better, recalling 81 percent
of the passage as opposed to 75 percent for the repeated-test group.
However, tested just two days later, the study-only group had forgotten much of
what they had learned, already scoring slightly lower than the repeated-test group.
Tested one week later, the study-test-test-test group scored dramatically better,
remembering 61 percent of the passage as compared with only 40 percent by the study-only
group.
The study-only group had read the passage about 14 times, but still recalled less
than the repeated testing group, which had read the passage only 3.4 times in its
one-and-only study session.
"Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later
retention, a phenomenon known as the 'testing effect,'" says Roediger.
"Our findings demonstrate that the testing effect is not simply a result of Students
gaining re-exposure to the material during testing because Students in our repeated-study
group had multiple opportunities to re-experience 100 percent of the material but
still produced poor long-term retention. Clearly, testing enhances long-term retention
through some mechanism that is both different from and more effective than restudy
alone."
Improving classroom instruction
Previous research, says Roediger, offers a number of theories on why this phenomenon
takes place. One suggests we learn more efficiently when placed in difficult situations
-- think of that sinking feeling in your stomach when a pop quiz is announced.
Others suggest that repeated testing improves long-term recall by forcing Students
to practice the very skills they will need to recollect this information at a later
date, a memory quirk that might be called the "use-it or lose-it" effect.
The fact that study-only Students did relatively well when tested after only five
minutes is consistent with other research showing that massed presentation or "cramming"
improves performance primarily in the short-run, whereas studies spaced over intervals
tend to result in better long-term retention.
This study, says Roediger, reveals just how strong the testing effect is: Even though
repeated study across intervals offers known benefits to long-term retention, Students
in the repeated-testing group still produced much better results on a delayed test
of recollection.
Roediger is involved in number of research projects designed to use new knowledge
from the cognitive sciences to improve classroom instruction. This research was
supported by a grant from the Institute of Educational Sciences and by a Collaborative
Activity Grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation.
Although the participants in this study were college undergraduates (ages 18-24),
the findings of the study have important implications for all classrooms. Many Students,
notes Roediger, continue to rely heavily on repeated-study techniques, often with
the encouragement of their Teachers.
Even better long-term retention may be possible, he suggests, if Students are alerted
that they will be tested often, encouraged to review at least once before each test
and then given timely feedback on the accuracy of their answers.
"We believe the time is ripe for a thorough examination of the mnemonic benefits
of testing and its potentially important consequences for improving childhood educational
practice," he concludes.
|