Brief Summary of the Article
In the study, the researchers wanted to know if taking memory tests improved long-term learning retention. The researchers carried out their work by studying testing effect using relevant educational materials. They investigated if testing facilitates learning only since they provide an opportunity for one to restudy educational materials. The researchers carried out two experiments with students where they studied prose passage and then took about three immediate free-recall tests. The other students then restudied the given material about three times as the ones who received the tests. The researchers then allowed the students to take a final test after five minutes, two days and one week later. The outcomes demonstrated that final test given after five minutes showed repeated studying enhanced recall as compared to repeated testing. When the tests were given on a later time, previous testing had better retention compared to studying. However, repeated studying enhanced a student’s confidence in their ability to memorize the given material. Imperatively, the study concluded that taking a memory test assesses one’s knowledge ability and enhances later retention as compared to restudying. Therefore, testing is a powerful way of improving and assessing learning.
Critical Analysis of the study
The study presents critical information on understanding the learning process and its impact on memory retention. Testing is one component of the learning process in educational settings used to assess what one has learned. The study demonstrates that the testing effect is essential in helping students assess their knowledge and ability to understand learned concepts. Imperatively, the study presents particular strengths, weaknesses and an opportunity for researchers to consider alternative designs of carrying out tests aimed at enhancing student retention and learning.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first strength of the study is that it demonstrates the significance of the testing effect in educational settings using two different approaches. The first approach is using prose materials while the second one is the use of free-recall tests without feedback. These approaches are akin to essay tests that are utilized in educational settings. The use of these approaches deviates from previous studies that have used recognition tests like multiple choices or cued recall, for instance, short-answer tests. Imperatively, the researchers present new approaches to testing and understanding how students retain information learned through different materials and methodologies.
Second, the experiment demonstrates the need for researchers to move away from the more traditional recognition-based approaches to learning and testing and allow students to explore how restudying can improve learning and retention. Therefore, the research offers an opportunity for scientists and psychologists to consider the benefits of testing facilities beyond the merits of restudying relevant materials. Further, some testing-effect studies compare a study-test condition with a study-only condition on delayed retention test. Consequently, when participants in the former experiments outperform those in the latter condition in a final test, questions arise on whether the testing effect is due to the study-test participant being repeatedly exposed to the material during the study. Therefore, such a situation presents students with two materials to learn and study instead of one. However, this study offers one presentation where the students get the opportunity to carry out learning by testing what they have studied on a pre-determined period.
Conversely, the study presents some weaknesses based on its controlled conditions. Placing the students in controlled restudy conditions using pre-determined study material was aimed at producing a certain result. The bias performance outcomes in favor of the set condition reduced the objectivity of the study outcomes. The researchers assert that the use of controlled conditions was informed by the fact that students who take free-recall tests without feedback get the same experience irrespective of the material they can recall. While their explanation may be suited to attaining their study objectives, the researchers could have exposed their study subjects to uncontrolled conditions with the purpose of ensuring that they got different outcomes.
Secondly, the study’s controlled timing is short as they based their testing on a five minute interval, two days and a week later. While the periods are unique to the expected outcomes, they present a weakness in that the study cannot explore how testing facilitates learning after a considerable time in educational settings, perhaps two weeks or one month after learning. Thirdly, the study focuses more testing as compared to studying. While it acknowledges that testing produces greater retention than studying, it does not offer comprehensive effects between the two approaches in a non-educational setting.
Suggestions for Future Research
The outcomes from the experiment suggest that the researchers may get a different result if they placed their subjects in uncontrolled conditions. Further, they are likely to obtain a different result by having their experiments in non-educational setting without a pre-determined performance based on set conditions. In addition, the researchers may need to extend the period to ascertain the long-term effect of testing and its role in retention as compared to studying. While testing facilitates learning, studying goes beyond the need for a student to retain what they have learned but expects them not only to recall but also retain and apply the acquired knowledge in their different circumstance. Consequently, testing experiments in the future may have to consider different learning and studying settings instead of confining these studies to certain pre-determined and controlled conditions designed to offer a biased result or performance.
