Two routes to the same place: learning from quick closed-book essays versus open-book essays

References

• Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open-and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal, P. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2011). Expectancy of an open-book test decreases performance on a delayed closed-book test. Memory, 19(8), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.613840
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, F. T., & McDaniel, M. A. (in press). Restudying with the quiz in hand: When correct-answer feedback is no better than minimal feedback. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advanced online publication, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.10.004.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, K. M., Daniel, D. B., Jensen, J., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2016). Structure building predicts grades in college psychology and biology. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3226
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000119
   Google Scholar
• Balgopal, M. M., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Decisions and dilemmas: Using writing to learn activities to increase ecological literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.3200/joee.40.3.13-26
   Google Scholar
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
   Google Scholar
• Bernhardt, S. A. (n.d.). Writing as instructional practice [Blog post]. http://www.nea.org/home/34959.htm
   Google Scholar
• 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 II (pp. 396–401). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Black-Maier, A. C., Butler, A. C., Casimir, E., & Marsh, E. J. (in prep). Why does retrieval practice produce superior transfer?
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, L. (2008). WCopyfind [computer software]. http://www.plagiarism.bloomfieldmedia.com.
   Google Scholar
• Bui, D. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Enhancing learning during lecture note-taking using outlines and illustrative diagrams. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 4(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Butler, A., Phillmann, K. B., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: Assessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises. Teaching of Psychology, 28(4), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2804_04
   Google Scholar
• Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and high structure builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.339
   Google Scholar
• Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Making connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2701_10
   Google Scholar
• Durning, S. J., Dong, T., Ratcliffe, T., Schuwirth, L., Artino, A. R., Boulet, J. R., & Eva, K. (2016). Comparing open-book and closed-book examinations: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 91(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000977
   Google Scholar
• Ebersbach, M. (2020). Access to the learning material enhances learning by means of generating questions: Comparing open-and closed-book conditions. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 19, 100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100130
   Google Scholar
• Eilertsen, T. V., & Valdermo, O. (2000). Open-book assessment: A contribution to improved learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(00)00010-9
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., & Coté, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(5), 566–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90052-2
   Google Scholar
• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
   Google Scholar
• Feller, M. (1994). Open-book testing and education for the future. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20(2), 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(94)90010-8
   Google Scholar
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight ways to promote learning.
   Google Scholar
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
   Google Scholar
• Friend, R. (2002). Summing it up. The Science Teacher, 69(4), 40–43.
   Google Scholar
• Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.430
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A., & Verner, K. R. (1988). The multi-media comprehension battery. University of Oregon, Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Gharib, A., Phillips, W., & Mathew, N. (2012). Cheat sheet or open-book? A comparison of the effects of exam types on performance, retention, and anxiety. Psychology Research, 2(8), 469–478.
   Google Scholar
• Gingerich, K. J., Bugg, J. M., Doe, S. R., Rowland, C. A., Richards, T. L., Tompkins, S. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Active processing via write-to-learn assignments: Learning and retention benefits in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549701
   Google Scholar
• Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026683
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidou, M. K. (1997). Testing and life-long learning: Open-book and closed-book examination in a university course. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)00008-4
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, H., Kröger, P., Oja, H., Poutanen, M., & Donner, K. J. (2006). Fundamental astronomy. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kirk-Johnson, A., Galla, B. M., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2019). Perceiving effort as poor learning: The misinterpreted-effort hypothesis of how experienced effort and perceived learning relate to study strategy choice. Cognitive Psychology, 115, Article 101237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101237
   Google Scholar
• Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x
   Google Scholar
• Levin, J. R. (1988). Elaboration-based learning strategies: Powerful theory = powerful application. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90020-3
   Google Scholar
• Lin, C., McDaniel, M. A., & Miyatsu, T. (2018). Effects of flashcards on learning authentic materials: The role of detailed versus conceptual flashcards and individual differences in structure building. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.003
   Google Scholar
• Mandler, G. (1967). Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 327–372). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.106/S0079-7421(08)60516-2.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M., Nguyen, K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Structure building differences influence learning from educational text: Effects on encoding, retention, and metacognitive control. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.005
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand word? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., & Bugg, J. M. (2008). Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.237
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Hines, R. J., & Guynn, M. J. (2002). When text difficulty benefits less-skilled readers. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 544–561. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2819
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02325.x
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Marsh, E. J., & Gouravajhala, R. (in press). Individual differences in structure building: Impacts on comprehension and learning, theoretical underpinnings, and support for less-able structure builders. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(2), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.2.371
   Google Scholar
• Moore, R., & Jensen, P. A. (2007). Do open-book exams impede long-term learning in introductory biology courses? Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(7), 46–49.
   Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., Stamelos, I. G., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2011). The value of writing-to-learn when using question prompts to support web-based learning in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9167-0
   Google Scholar
• Pauker, J. D. (1974). Effect of open-book examinations on test performance in an undergraduate child psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 1(2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/009862837400100205
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). LIWC2015: Linguistic inquiry and word count. Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).
   Google Scholar
• Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Carpenter, S. K. (2015). Does the benefit of testing depend on lag, and if so, why? Evaluating the elaborative retrieval hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0477-z
   Google Scholar
• Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
   Google Scholar
• Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: The complexity of the task matters. Learning and Instruction, 49, 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.008
   Google Scholar
• Roelle, J., & Nuckles, M. (2019). Generative learning versus retrieval practice in learning from text: The cohesion and elaboration of the text matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1341–1361. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000345
   Google Scholar
• Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Gerst, K., & Wagner, S. (2017). Is testing a more effective learning strategy than note-taking? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(3), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000134
   Google Scholar
• Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Schwede, A. (2019). Open-book versus closed-book tests in university classes: A field experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00463
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D. R. (2005). A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787405054237
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., & Culley, M. R. (2010). Enhanced learning and retention through “writing to learn” in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 37(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903425813
   Google Scholar
• Voss, J. F., & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding while writing essays in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)89733-9
   Google Scholar
• Waldeyer, J., Heitmann, S., Moning, J., & Roelle, J. (2020). Can generative learning tasks be optimized by incorporation of retrieval practice? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. Doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
   Google Scholar