Transfer-appropriate processing in the testing effect

Abstract

The testing effect is the finding that taking a review test enhances performance on a final test relative to restudying the material. The present experiment investigated transfer-appropriate processing in the testing effect using semantic and orthographic cues to evoke conceptual and data-driven processing, respectively. After a study phase, subjects either restudied the material or took a cued-recall test consisting of half semantic and half orthographic cues in which the correct response was given as feedback. A final, cued-recall test consisted of the identical cue, or a new cue that was of the same type or different type of cue (semantic/orthographic or orthographic/semantic) as that used for that target in the review test. Testing enhanced memory in all conditions. When the review cues and final-test cues were identical, final recall was higher for semantic than orthographic cues. Consistent with test-based transfer-appropriate processing, memory performance improved as the review and final cues became more similar. These results suggest that the testing effect could potentially be caused by the episodic retrieval processes in a final memory test overlapping more with the episodic retrieval processes in a review test than with the encoding operations performed during restudy.

Keywords:

• Transfer-appropriate processing
• Testing effect
• Cued recall
• Retrieval practice

We thank W. Trammell Neill for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. These data were presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Toronto Canada in November, 2013.

This article is based on an undergraduate honors thesis by the first author under the supervision of the second and third authors.

We thank W. Trammell Neill for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. These data were presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Toronto Canada in November, 2013.

This article is based on an undergraduate honors thesis by the first author under the supervision of the second and third authors.

Notes

¹ When distraction is used as a baseline for assessing a TE, there is a bias towards obtaining a TE because the Test Review group receives additional exposure to some or all of the studied materials. Thus, we use the more conservative restudy baseline in the present experiment. However, see Kornell, Rabelo, and Klein (2012) for a discussion of the appropriate baseline for assessing a TE.

² Based on paired-associate learning and cued-recall data, Putnam and Roediger (2013) argued against a TAP account of TEs based on their finding equivalent TEs whether the response modes (typed vs. oral) for the review test and final test were the same or different. However, this null effect was likely due to the response-mode differences having been overwhelmed by the identity of the representations that were covertly retrieved in exactly the same way prior to output. To find other experiments that investigated TAP in the TE, we used Google Scholar to find the 131, 34 and 154 articles that cited Carpenter and DeLosh (2006), McDaniel et al. (1989) and McDaniel and Masson (1985), respectively. We found 11 experiments (all using prose passages) that (1) factorially manipulated the type of review test and final test, (2) tested individuals' non-collaborative memories and (3) compared final-test performance on exactly the same target information and target information that had been tested in the review tests. They were Avci (2011, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Experiments 2–4), Duchastel and Nungester (1982), Glover (1989, Experiments 4a–c), Kang et al. (2007, Experiments 1–2) and McDermott, Agarwal, D'Antonio, Roediger, and McDaniel (2014, Experiments 1a and 1b). When non-identical cues were used for the same-type tests, the crucial Review Test × Final Test interaction favoring TAP was never observed. This is likely due to these experiments having used recognition and recall tests, which engage conceptual processes that are not different enough to produce a TAP effect.

³ Karpicke and Zaromb (2010) showed that an episodic retrieval orientation during cued-recall review increases the magnitude of a TE produced by the active generation of the target in a generation task. However, an episodic retrieval orientation is not by itself sufficient to produce a TE in that TEs are typically not observed (compared to a restudy control group) for recognition review memory tests, which require an episodic retrieval orientation but no active generation of the target (e.g., Carpenter & Delosh, 2006). Nevertheless, a shared episodic retrieval orientation and episodic evaluation could have been mediating the TE we observed when our cued-recall review and final tests were of different type.