Pretesting effect - Revision history

Vipul at 00:19, 4 December 2023

2023-12-04T00:19:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 4 December 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{observed effect in learning}}

	The '''pretesting effect''' is a phenomenon where even failing to produce the correct answer or testing before learning a material improves test scores relative to regular studying (also called "extended study", where one passively reads a passage).<ref>[http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Pre-Testing.html "The Pre-Testing Effect"]. ''The University of Chicago Learning Lab''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.</ref><ref name="richland-2009">Lindsey E. Richland; Nate Kornell; Liche Sean Kao. "The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?" ''Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied''. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 243–257.</ref> This effect justifies generation, especially generation before learning a topic (e.g. [[meditation]], [[inquiry-based learning]]).		The '''pretesting effect''' is a phenomenon where even failing to produce the correct answer or testing before learning a material improves test scores relative to regular studying (also called "extended study", where one passively reads a passage).<ref>[http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Pre-Testing.html "The Pre-Testing Effect"]. ''The University of Chicago Learning Lab''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.</ref><ref name="richland-2009">Lindsey E. Richland; Nate Kornell; Liche Sean Kao. "The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?" ''Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied''. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 243–257.</ref> This effect justifies generation, especially generation before learning a topic (e.g. [[meditation]], [[inquiry-based learning]]).

Issa Rice: /* Mechanisms */

2018-11-20T07:02:56Z

Mechanisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:02, 20 November 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* Effects of testing itself: ???		* Effects of testing itself: ???
	** Effects on learners' "intentional learning practices" (what, specifically?) (p. 248)<ref name="richland-2009" />		** Effects on learners' "intentional learning practices" (what, specifically?) (p. 248)<ref name="richland-2009" />

			I think we can (and should) go one more level and ask, "what is the mechanism by which 'Active attempt to recall key information from memory' helps with learning?" (i.e. we are asking about the mechanism of a particular mechanism, so we are looking for a lower-level mechanism).

	===Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms===		===Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms===

Issa Rice at 03:06, 13 November 2018

2018-11-13T03:06:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:06, 13 November 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''pretesting effect''' is a phenomenon where even failing to produce the correct answer or testing before learning a material improves test scores relative to regular studying (also called "extended study", where one passively reads a passage).<ref>[http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Pre-Testing.html "The Pre-Testing Effect"]. ''The University of Chicago Learning Lab''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.</ref><ref name="richland-2009">Lindsey E. Richland; Nate Kornell; Liche Sean Kao. "The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?" ''Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied''. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 243–257.</ref> This effect justifies generation, especially generation before learning a topic ([[meditation]], [[inquiry-based learning]]~~, etc.~~).		The '''pretesting effect''' is a phenomenon where even failing to produce the correct answer or testing before learning a material improves test scores relative to regular studying (also called "extended study", where one passively reads a passage).<ref>[http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Pre-Testing.html "The Pre-Testing Effect"]. ''The University of Chicago Learning Lab''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.</ref><ref name="richland-2009">Lindsey E. Richland; Nate Kornell; Liche Sean Kao. "The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?" ''Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied''. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 243–257.</ref> This effect justifies generation, especially generation before learning a topic (e.g. [[meditation]], [[inquiry-based learning]]).

	One weird detail about the Richland paper<ref name="richland-2009" /> is that it doesn't talk about what the "test and study" were subjects were thinking as they were studying, e.g. did they recognize that reading passages contained the answers to the questions they were asked?		One weird detail about the Richland paper<ref name="richland-2009" /> is that it doesn't talk about what the "test and study" were subjects were thinking as they were studying, e.g. did they recognize that reading passages contained the answers to the questions they were asked?

Issa Rice at 03:05, 13 November 2018

2018-11-13T03:05:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 13 November 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''pretesting effect''' is a phenomenon where even failing to produce the correct answer or testing before learning a material improves test scores relative to regular studying (~~what is regular studying?~~).<ref>[http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Pre-Testing.html "The Pre-Testing Effect"]. ''The University of Chicago Learning Lab''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.</ref> This effect justifies generation, especially generation before learning a topic ([[meditation]], [[inquiry-based learning]], etc.).		The '''pretesting effect''' is a phenomenon where even failing to produce the correct answer or testing before learning a material improves test scores relative to regular studying (also called "extended study", where one passively reads a passage).<ref>[http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Pre-Testing.html "The Pre-Testing Effect"]. ''The University of Chicago Learning Lab''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.</ref><ref name="richland-2009">Lindsey E. Richland; Nate Kornell; Liche Sean Kao. "The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?" ''Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied''. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 243–257.</ref> This effect justifies generation, especially generation before learning a topic ([[meditation]], [[inquiry-based learning]], etc.).

	One weird detail about the Richland paper<ref name="richland-2009" /> is that it doesn't talk about what the "test and study" were subjects were thinking as they were studying, e.g. did they recognize that reading passages contained the answers to the questions they were asked?		One weird detail about the Richland paper<ref name="richland-2009" /> is that it doesn't talk about what the "test and study" were subjects were thinking as they were studying, e.g. did they recognize that reading passages contained the answers to the questions they were asked?
Line 17:		Line 17:
	! Mechanism name !! Description of mechanism !! Interventions that make use of this mechanism !! Example		! Mechanism name !! Description of mechanism !! Interventions that make use of this mechanism !! Example
	\|-		\|-
	\| Attention direction \|\| The [[learner]] might just be cued to pay attention to specific things later on as they go through the learning material. (called [[mathemagenic behavior]]s or "learning-generating" behaviors). a.k.a. "affecting learners' looking behaviors". (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" /> \|\| Italicizing/bolding key parts of reading material; memorizing questions; answering pretest questions \|\| "For example, Rothkopf and Bisbicos (1967) found that asking participants questions in which the answers were numbers led to better retention of all numerical information in the text, possibly because participants were able to direct their attention to the type of information that was important to learn given the test they would take." (p. 244)<ref name="richland-2009">Lindsey E. Richland; Nate Kornell; Liche Sean Kao. "The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?" ''Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied''. 2009, Vol. 15, No. 3, 243–257.</~~ref~~>		\| Attention direction \|\| The [[learner]] might just be cued to pay attention to specific things later on as they go through the learning material. (called [[mathemagenic behavior]]s or "learning-generating" behaviors). a.k.a. "affecting learners' looking behaviors". (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" /> \|\| Italicizing/bolding key parts of reading material; memorizing questions; answering pretest questions \|\| "For example, Rothkopf and Bisbicos (1967) found that asking participants questions in which the answers were numbers led to better retention of all numerical information in the text, possibly because participants were able to direct their attention to the type of information that was important to learn given the test they would take." (p. 244)<ref name="richland-2009" />
	\|-		\|-
	\| Supporting the organization of knowledge structures by guiding learning \|\| helping "as an organizational framework to better structure causal structure and knowledge interpretations" (I can barely make out what this even means..) (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" /> I think this is specifically meant to ''not'' be attention direction. So it's not that you're looking at the right places in the reading material; rather, somehow reading the questions cues up your "organizational framework" in some deeper way. \|\| Memorizing questions; answering pretest questions \|\|		\| Supporting the organization of knowledge structures by guiding learning \|\| helping "as an organizational framework to better structure causal structure and knowledge interpretations" (I can barely make out what this even means..) (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" /> I think this is specifically meant to ''not'' be attention direction. So it's not that you're looking at the right places in the reading material; rather, somehow reading the questions cues up your "organizational framework" in some deeper way. \|\| Memorizing questions; answering pretest questions \|\|

Issa Rice: /* Mechanisms */

2018-11-13T02:56:41Z

Mechanisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:56, 13 November 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* Effects of testing itself: ???		* Effects of testing itself: ???
	** Effects on learners' "intentional learning practices" (what, specifically?) (p. 248)<ref name="richland-2009" />		** Effects on learners' "intentional learning practices" (what, specifically?) (p. 248)<ref name="richland-2009" />
	** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />

	===Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms===		===Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms===

Issa Rice: /* Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms */

2018-11-13T02:55:35Z

Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:55, 13 November 2018
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.		Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.

	Something I'm not sure about: whether "pretesting effect" applies to the benefits of the ''intervention'' "answering pretest questions" (over regular study) or the benefits of the ''mechanism'' "active attempt to recall information".		Something I'm not sure about: whether "pretesting effect" applies to the benefits of the ''intervention'' "answering pretest questions" (over regular study) or the benefits of the ''mechanism'' "active attempt to recall information". My current guess is it's the latter.

	{\| class="sortable wikitable"		{\| class="sortable wikitable"

Issa Rice: /* Interventions: discovering the mechanism */

2018-11-13T02:54:34Z

Interventions: discovering the mechanism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, 13 November 2018
Line 30:		Line 30:
	** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />		** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />

	===Interventions: discovering the ~~mechanism~~===		===Interventions: discovering the distribution of benefits over mechanisms===

	Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.		Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.

Issa Rice: /* Intervention: discovering the mechanism */

2018-11-13T02:53:20Z

Intervention: discovering the mechanism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, 13 November 2018
Line 30:		Line 30:
	** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />		** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />

	===~~Intervention~~: discovering the mechanism===		===Interventions: discovering the mechanism===

	Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.		Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.

Issa Rice: /* Discovering the mechanism */

2018-11-13T02:52:31Z

Discovering the mechanism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:52, 13 November 2018
Line 30:		Line 30:
	** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />		** "Two explanations for those results could include that (a) test questions may provide an organizational framework that indirectly affects retention by guiding future learning, and (b) allowing participants to read test questions may induce deep processing more effectively than does merely reading the passage." (p. 250)<ref name="richland-2009" />

	===~~Discovering~~ the mechanism===		===Intervention: discovering the mechanism===

	Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.		Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.

Issa Rice: /* Discovering the mechanism */

2018-11-13T02:50:05Z

Discovering the mechanism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:50, 13 November 2018
Line 32:		Line 32:
	===Discovering the mechanism===		===Discovering the mechanism===

	Basically, the intervention "~~Answering~~ pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.		Basically, the intervention "answering pretest questions" bundles up ''a lot'' of benefits that the learner might get. So in order to find out what we are after (how much "active attempt to recall information" helps) we have to perform ''other'' interventions that give all the benefits ''other than'' "active attempt to recall information", and then subtract the score differences.

			Something I'm not sure about: whether "pretesting effect" applies to the benefits of the ''intervention'' "answering pretest questions" (over regular study) or the benefits of the ''mechanism'' "active attempt to recall information".

	{\| class="sortable wikitable"		{\| class="sortable wikitable"