Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Scholarly Works (4 results)

  • Article
  • Peer Reviewed
UCLA Previously Published Works (2021)
We investigated whether continuously alternating between topics during practice, or interleaved practice, improves memory and the ability to solve problems in undergraduate physics. Over 8 weeks, students in two lecture sections of a university-level introductory physics course completed thrice-weekly homework assignments, each containing problems that were interleaved (i.e., alternating topics) or conventionally arranged (i.e., one topic practiced at a time). On two surprise criterial tests containing novel and more challenging problems, students recalled more relevant information and more frequently produced correct solutions after having engaged in interleaved practice (with observed median improvements of 50% on test 1 and 125% on test 2). Despite benefiting more from interleaved practice, students tended to rate the technique as more difficult and incorrectly believed that they learned less from it. Thus, in a domain that entails considerable amounts of problem-solving, replacing conventionally arranged with interleaved homework can (despite perceptions to the contrary) foster longer lasting and more generalizable learning.
    Cover page: Interleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics
    • Thesis
    • Peer Reviewed
    UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations (2018)

    Retrieval practice is a learning technique which involves taking practice tests on to be-recalled information. Because it is one of the most potent memory enhancers known to learning science, many cognitive and educational psychologists endorse retrieval practice as a highly effective method for enhancing academic performance. However, retrieval practice’s capacity to enhance transfer of learning, or the generalization of learning to different contexts, has yet to be fully characterized. Given that learning often needs to be flexibly applied, the importance of transfer to education is paramount. In the current research, four studies investigated retrieval practice and transfer to rearranged stimulus-response elements. With this type of transfer, practice and criterial tests target

    the same basic information, such as a specific fact or concept, but feature different cues and responses. For example, given the fact “Thomas Jefferson purchased Louisiana from France”, a practice test asks, “Thomas Jefferson purchased what from France?”, whereas a criterial test asks, “Who purchased Louisiana from France?” The chief question was whether learning would transfer—as evidenced by better accuracy—to criterial test questions featuring rearranged stimulus-response elements. Studies 1-4 used triple associate words, Advanced Placement History and Biology course facts, term-definition neuroscience facts, and process-based biology concepts, respectively. Throughout these studies, retrieval practice consistently improved accuracy when cues and responses were consistent on practice and criterial tests, relative to a non-retrieval practice reexposure control condition. However, substantially reduced improvements were observed when the criterial test featured rearranged stimulus-response elements. This generally occurred regardless of the amount of, and the format of, retrieval practice. Only the addition of detailed and extensively processed feedback, as was investigated in Study 4, yielded exceptions to the prevailing pattern of minimal-to-no transfer. Overall, the present research yields insights into the transfer properties and mechanisms of retrieval practice, including its often selective enhancement of trained cue-response combinations. It also provides support for dual memory theories of retrieval practice effects. Practically, this research suggests that retrieval practice should be targeted at as many cue-response combinations as possible during training, or should incorporate extensively processed feedback, in order to yield maximum learning benefits.

      Cover page: Investigations of Retrieval Practice and Transfer of Learning for Rearranged Stimulus-Response Elements
      • Article
      • Peer Reviewed
      UC San Diego Previously Published Works (2022)
      In three experiments we investigated how the level of study-based, episodic knowledge influences the efficacy of subsequent retrieval practice (testing) as a learning event. Possibilities are that the efficacy of a test, relative to a restudy control, decreases, increases, or is independent of the degree of prior study-based learning. The degree of study-based learning was manipulated by varying the number of item repetitions in the initial study phase between one and eight. Predictions of the dual-memory model of test-enhanced learning for the case of one study-phase repetition were used as a reference. Results support the hypothesis that the advantage of testing over restudy is independent of the degree of prior episodic learning, and they suggest that educators can apply cued-recall testing with the expectation that its efficacy is similar across varying levels of prior content learning. Implications for testing effect theory are discussed.
        Cover page: Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice
        • Article
        • Peer Reviewed
        UC San Diego Previously Published Works (2015)
        Brewer and Unsworth (2012) reported that individuals with low episodic memory ability exhibit a larger testing effect, a finding with potentially important educational implications. We conducted two replication attempts of that study. Exp 1 (n=120) drew from a broad demographic sample and was conducted online, while Exp 2 (n=122) was conducted in the lab with undergraduate students. Both experiments demonstrated a large testing effect across the range of episodic ability in our sample, and with no trend suggesting a larger testing effect for lower ability subjects. We show that apparent differences in the distribution of episodic ability levels between our samples and that of Brewer and Unsworth provide a plausible account of the contrasting correlation results, and that, more generally, sampling from a restricted ability range can yield positive, negative, or no correlation even if there is no difference in the effectiveness of testing for low vs. high ability subjects in the broader population. We discuss methodological and theoretical issues that complicate interpretation of individual differences effects in this domain, individual difference predictions of testing effect models, and educational implications.
          Top