S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 2083–2089 Friday Noon
failed on initial tests, memory performance on a final posttest including
tested and novel items was better in the tested condition in all
experiments. Retrieving the correct answer from memory does not appear
to be the only reason for the testing effect—simply being asked
seems to enhance learning.
(2083)
Test-Enhanced Learning in the Classroom: The Columbia Middle
School Project. HENRY L. ROEDIGER III, MARK A. MCDANIEL,
KATHLEEN B. MCDERMOTT, & POOJA K. AGARWAL, Washington
University (sponsored by Janet Duchek)—The testing effect refers to
enhanced learning of information that has been previously tested. We
implemented and experimentally evaluated a test-enhanced learning
program in 6th-grade social studies classes. Experiment 1 involved
within-subjects manipulation of whether target facts from daily
lessons were quizzed or not. Multiple-choice quizzes were administered
prior to the class lesson, at the end of the class lesson, and as a
review several days after the class lesson. Across four multiple-choice
chapter examinations, a significantly higher proportion of previously
tested facts were answered correctly than nontested facts. Experiment
2 added a condition in which some facts were presented for
rereading. Chapter examination performance on facts presented for
rereading was higher than for nontested facts but still significantly
lower than for tested facts. Thus, the testing effect was not a mere exposure
effect. Testing significantly enhanced learning of target information
in 6th-grade social studies classes.
(2084)
Testing Insulates Against Build-Up of Proactive Interference.
KARL K. SZPUNAR, KATHLEEN B. MCDERMOTT, & HENRY L.
ROEDIGER III, Washington University (sponsored by Kathleen B.
McDermott)—Cramming for an examination is a ubiquitous learning
strategy that has received little attention in the laboratory. Verbal
learning experiments, which require participants to learn large sets of
materials in a short amount of time, are well suited to inform our understanding
of this common study strategy. In three experiments, we
show that although previous learning impairs the learning of later information
in the study sequence (proactive interference), interpolating
tests during the study sequence appears to insulate against this
negative influence. Our findings highlight a unique benefit of testing,
when administered during the course of study, and have important implications
for students’ study strategies.
(2085)
The Benefit of Generative Study Activities Depends on the Nature of
the Criterial Test. ANDREW C. BUTLER, PATRICK S. FLANAGAN,
HENRY L. ROEDIGER III, & MARK A. MCDANIEL, Washington University
(sponsored by David G. Elmes)—Generative study activities
can enhance retention of text-based material. Two experiments investigated
how the nature of the criterial test influences the benefits derived
from two types of generative study. Specifically, we manipulated the
type of initial study activity (letter reinsertion, paragraph sorting, reading)
as well as the question type (tapping item-specific or relational information)
and test format (multiple-choice or cued recall) on a delayed
criterial test. Subjects performed one of the three study activities on a
set of prose passages. Two days later, they were tested with questions
about both item-specific and relational information from the passages,
and these questions were presented in multiple-choice or cued recall test
format. The benefit of generative activities depended critically on
whether the type of processing produced by the activity matched the
type of processing required during the criterial test. This pattern of
transfer appropriate processing held across both types of test format.
(2086)
Using the 3Rs: Study Strategies and Learning From Educational
Texts. DANIEL C. HOWARD & MARK A. MCDANIEL, Washington
University, & GILLES O. EINSTEIN, Furman University (sponsored
by Mark A. McDaniel)—Two experiments with young adults investi-
81
gated the effectiveness of study strategies for learning from educational
texts. Of particular interest was the “3R” strategy, in which participants
read a text once, recited everything that they could remember
from the text, and then reread the text a second time. This strategy
has potent theoretical benefits because the recitation phase serves as
an immediate free recall test, which aids later recall of the information
(a phenomenon known as the “testing effect”) and may help guide
processing of the text during the rereading phase. The 3R strategy was
compared with a note-taking study strategy and a read-twice control
group in two experiments with information of varying complexity.
Learning was assessed with free recall, multiple-choice, and short answer
inference questions. The 3R group showed improvements over
control on all three types of criterial test.
(2087)
Determinants of Learning From Text: The Roles of Reader and
Text Characteristics. NICOLE MOON, DAVID Z. HAMBRICK, &
ERIK M. ALTMANN, Michigan State University—The current study
investigated the roles of reader-related and text-related characteristics
in passage learning. The questions of interest were the following:
(1) whether the inclusion of an organizer in the form of an embedded
analogy would interact with working memory (WM) and prior knowledge
(PK) in passage learning, and (2) whether there was a relationship
between WM and PK in passage learning. Participants in both the
control and the organizer conditions were given WM tasks, PK tests,
a passage, and tests of passage learning. A hierarchical regression revealed
that supplying learners with an embedded analogy improved
recall of information related to main concepts. In addition, this analysis
indicated that although WM and PK contributed positively to passage
learning performance, no evidence was found that organizers are
able to compensate for WM or PK.
(2088)
Criterion Shifts As a Function of Probe Strength: Rereading and
Text Retrieval. MURRAY SINGER, University of Manitoba—This
study scrutinized criterion shifts as a function of probe strength in text
retrieval. People apply more liberal criteria to temporally remote than
to recent intermixed recognition probes, in both text and category
recognition (Singer & Wixted, Memory & Cognition, 2006). However,
there is no criterion shift in response to conspicuous probe-strength
differences (Stretch & Wixted, JEP:LMC, 1998). Here, people read
10 stories once or twice each. Reading repetitions were either consecutive
(Experiment 1) or at intervals of over four stories (Experiment
2). Later, the participants recognized probes from story pairs,
one weak (one reading) and one strong. Criterion was independent of
strength (as in Stretch & Wixted) in spaced rereading; but in consecutive
rereading, there was a distinct criterion shift. Consecutive
rereading may enhance the perceptual representations of text encoding.
This could impact the probe’s familiarity, the memory process
that is closely associated with the strength variable of signal detection.
Conspicuous familiarity differences may regulate criterion shifts.
(2089)
High-Tech Textbooks: Do Dynamic Visual Displays and Interactivity
Increase Learning? KEITH B. LYLE, University of Louisville,
MARK A. MCDANIEL, Washington University, ANDREA S. YOUNG,
Duke University, & ROBIN J. HEYDEN, Educational Multimedia
Consultant—New textbooks may incorporate dynamic visual displays,
which furthermore may be interactive and require the reader to
generate responses. Visual representations and self-generation increase
memory for simple laboratory stimuli, but little is known about
how these factors affect learning and memory for complex, real-world
material such as that in textbooks. In the present studies, undergraduate
subjects read one of three versions of a lesson from a real biology
textbook. The versions differed in whether they did or did not include
dynamic visual displays, and whether subjects passively viewed
the displays or interactively responded to them. Learning was assessed
using a variety of test types (e.g., multiple-choice, short answer) and