SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Abstract
Many studies have shown that retrieving information during a test facilitates later memory for that information. Most research on this testing effect has focused on retention of information measured via a final test that is similar to the initial test. Much less is known about the potential of testing to promote the application—i.e., transfer—of learning. In this article, I review recent studies that have begun to address this issue, specifically with regard to the benefits of testing on transfer across temporal contexts, test formats, and knowledge domains. The small but growing number of studies on this topic have so far reported robust benefits of testing on transfer of learning. Future research is encouraged that explores the potential of tests to promote not just direct retention of information, but also the application of knowledge to new situations.
Discussion questions:
- What is the testing effect? How is it relevant to daily life?
- What is meant by the “transfer of learning”? Can you think of an example of this from your own learning?
- According to the author, what factors influence “transfer of learning”?
Abstract
A well-known finding in memory research is the forgetting effect that occurs because of practicing some Item A on the recall of a related Item B. The traditional explanation for such interference effects is based on the notion of competition. According to the inhibition theory of forgetting, however, such forgetting is due to an inhibitory control process that operates whenever the retrieval of specific target information is hindered by competition from related information. The suppression of the related information is a longer lasting phenomenon that may show up on later testing. We report several experiments that were carried out to test 2 fundamental assumptions of the inhibition theory: the interference dependence and retrieval specificity assumptions. The results of these experiments do not support the predictions of the inhibition theory. Instead, the results are more compatible with the standard account that attributes the forgetting to competition at the time of the later testing.
Discussion questions:
- What is “retrieval-induced forgetting”? How is this type of forgetting tested?
- According to the authors, what causes retrieval-induced forgetting?
- What factors influence this effect in memory?
Abstract
Transfer-appropriate-processing accounts of memory emphasize the similarity of encoding and retrieval processes, and imply that experimental manipulations should have similar effects on encoding and retrieval. Exceptions to this expectation are thus of great interest, but extant exceptions (produced by studies using divided attention, alcohol, and benzodiazepines) are debatable, single dissociations between encoding and retrieval. The present experiments demonstrate a reversed dissociation, in which the same variable produced opposite effects when implemented at encoding and retrieval. At encoding, participants either solved anagrams of study words or read intact study words. At retrieval, participants likewise solved anagrams or read intact words prior to making recognition memory judgments. Compared with reading intact words, solving anagrams at encoding enhanced later recognition accuracy, whereas solving anagrams at test impaired accuracy. These results were obtained with old/new decisions (Experiment 1) and with confidence ratings (Experiment 2).
Discussion questions:
- What is the generation effect? How does it compare in memory performance with encoding by simply reading words?
- In what way do the results of the study illustrate the interaction between encoding and retrieval?
- What is the difference between a single dissociation and a double dissociation in results between tasks?