Although previous research has demonstrated that guided testing (i.e., self-testing) and question generation effectively increase retention compared to control methods, no work has simultaneously implemented both strategies in the classroom. In a semester-long study designed to maximize experimental control in a naturalistic setting, we adapted both review strategies for an introduction-level psychology course. We found that guided testing produced better student performance on exams than generating one’s own practice questions. Additionally, students evaluated guided testing more positively than question generation. These findings build upon previous guided testing and question generation work by showing that, in the context of an introductory classroom, guided testing is more effective and efficient than generating questions.
AgarwalP. K.KarpickeJ. D.KangS. H.RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876. doi:10.1002/acp.1391
2.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.BloomB. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
AndreM. E.AndersonT. H. (1978). The development and evaluation of a self-questioning study technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 605–623. doi:10.2307/747264
4.
ArmbrusterP.PatelM.JohnsonE.WeissM. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8, 203–213. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025
BatsellW. R.PerryJ. L.HanleyE.HostetterA. B. (2017). Ecological validity of the testing effect: The use of daily quizzes in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 18–23. doi:10.1177/0098628316677492
7.
BertschS.PestaB. J.WiscottR.McDanielM. A. (2007). The generation effect: A meta-analytic review. Memory & Cognition, 35, 201–210. doi:10.3758/BF03193441
8.
BjorkR. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: An interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In SolsoR. L. (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 123–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
Blasco-ArcasL.BuilI.Hernández-OrtegaB.SeseF. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
10.
BloomB. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: David McKay.
CariniR. M.KuhG. D.KleinS. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
13.
CarpenterS. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563–1569. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/10.1037/a0017021
14.
CarpenterS. K.PashlerH.VulE. (2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 826–830. doi:10.3758/BF03194004
15.
CassadyJ. C.JohnsonR. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270–295. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
16.
DennerP. R.RickardsJ. P. (1987). A developmental comparison of the effects of provided and generated questions on text recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 135–146. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(87)80047-4
17.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1, 72–78. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/10.1037/stl0000024
18.
EinsteinG. O.MulletH. G.HarrisonT. L. (2012). The testing effect: Illustrating a fundamental concept and changing study strategies. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 190–193. doi:10.1177/0098628312450432
JacobyL. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 649–667. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90393-6
22.
KalyugaS. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
KangS. H.McDermottK. B.RoedigerH. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528–558. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/10.1080/09541440601056620
KingA. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(89)90022-2
28.
KingA. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050404
LehmanJ. R.LehmanK. M. (1984). The relative effects of experimenter and subject generated questions on learning from museum case exhibits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 931–935. doi:10.1002/tea.3660210907
32.
LyleK. B.CrawfordN. A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 94–97. doi:10.1177/0098628311401587
MatlinM. W. (2002). Cognitive psychology and college-level pedagogy: Two siblings that rarely communicate. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002, 87–203. doi:10.1002/tl.49
35.
MayerR. E.StullA.DeLeeuwK.AlmerothK.BimberB.ChunD.…ZhangH. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
McDanielM. A.BuggJ. M. (2008). Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 237–255. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.237
38.
McDanielM. A.FisherR. P. (1991). Tests and test feedback as learning sources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 192–201. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(91)90037-L
McDanielM. A.RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 200–206. doi:10.3758/BF03194052
RobinsonF. P. (1970). Effective study (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
43.
RoedigerH. L.AgarwalP. K.McDanielM. A.McDermottK. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 382. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/10.1037/a0026252
RoedigerH. L.KarpickeJ. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
46.
RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (1993). Implicit memory in normal human subjects. In BollerF.GrafmanJ. (Eds.). Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 8, pp. 63–131). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
TulvingE. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
WeinsteinY.McDermottK. B.RoedigerH. L. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: Rereading, answering questions, and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 308–316. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020992
50.
WespR.MieleJ. (2008). Student opinions of the quality of teaching activities poorly predict pedagogical effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 360–362. doi:10.1080/00986280802374617
