바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.3

Citation Share

The Effect of Overt/Covert Unsuccessful Retrieval upon Subsequent Learning

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2012, v.24 no.3, pp.211-230
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.3.001



& (2012). The Effect of Overt/Covert Unsuccessful Retrieval upon Subsequent Learning. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 24(3), 211-230, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.3.001

Abstract

The pretesting effect refers to the enhancement of learning due to unsuccessful retrieval upon being asked a question that is not easily answered. However, the results of research on the effect of overt retrieval on learning, have not been consistent. Therefore, the present study sought to clarify such confusion. We examined whether memory enhancement is affected by the number of wrong answers generated by the examinees and by the duration of retrieval. Four experiments were carried out with college students as participants. In Experiments 1 and 2, we manipulated the number of unsuccessful retrievals to either 1 or 3, and observed that there was no difference in performance. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants were asked to think of possible answers without overt responses. The results showed that the performance was better for those who were asked to think of more answers. The present study also examined whether pretesting effect is found even after a week's duration. After a week, pretesting effect was observed in case of the covert retrieval group; however it did not last for the overt retrieval group. These results support the search set theory by Grimaladi and Karpicke (2012) which states that active exploration of related material promotes learning. The present study also suggests that overt retrieval brings about retrieval competition and interferes with the retrieval of correct responses, and thus disrupts learning.

keywords
pretesting, unsuccessful rctrieval, testing effect, memory, 사전시험, 틀린 인출, 시험효과, 기억

Reference

1.

박주용 & 배제성 (2011). 인출 유도 후 재학습의 중요성. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23(4), 565-581.

2.

Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues-Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp.369-401). London: Wiley.

3.

Cunningham, D., & Anderson, R. C. (1968). Effects of practice time within prompting and confirmation presentation procedures on paired associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 7, 613-616.

4.

Glover, J. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone, but nearly forgotten. Journal of Education Psychology, 81(3), 392-399.

5.

Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40, 505-513.

6.

Huelser, B. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2012). Making related errors facilitates learning, but learners do not know it. Memory and Cognition, 40, 514-527.

7.

Izawa, C. (1970). Optimal potentiating effects and forgetting-prevention effects of tests in paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 340-344.

8.

Kane, J. H., & Anderson, R. C. (1978). Depth of processing and interfer-ence effects in the learning and remembering of sentences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 626-635.

9.

Kang, S. H. K., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Carpenter, S. K., & Mozer, M. C. (2011). Does incorrect guessing impair fact learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 48-59.

10.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966-968.

11.

Karpicke, J. D., & Zaromb, F. M. (2010). Retrieval mode distinguishes the testing effect from the generation effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 227-239.

12.

Kornell, N., Hays, M., Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(4), pp.989-998.

13.

Lachman, R., & Laughery, K. R. (1968). Is a test trial a training trial in free recall learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 40-50.

14.

Mozer, M. C., Howe, M., & Pashler, H. (2004). Using testing to enhance learning: A comparison of two hypotheses. In Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

15.

Park, J. (2005). Learning in a new computerized testing system. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97 (3), 436-443.

16.

Remmers, H. H., & Remmers, E. M. (1926). The negative suggestion effect on true-false examination questions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 52-56.

17.

Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 15, 243-257.

18.

Spitzer, H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 641-656.

19.

Toppino, T. C., & Brochin, H. A. (1989). Learning from tests: The case of true-false examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 119-124.

20.

Toppino, T. C., & Luipersbeck, S. M. (1993). Generality of the negative suggestion effect in objective tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 357-362.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy