A comparison of study strategies for passages: Rereading, answering questions, and generating questions

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 308-316

  Weinstein, Yana ^a   McDermott, Kathleen B ^a   Roediger, Henry L ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Metacognition; Study strategies; Testing effect

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); STUDENTS;

EID: 77957255715     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020992     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Agarwal P.K., Karpicke J.D., Kang S.H.K., Roediger H.L., McDermott K.B. Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 22:861-876.
2. Ben-Chaim D., Zoller U. Examination-type preferences of secondary school students and their teachers in the science disciplines. Instructional Science 1997, 25:347-367.
3. Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., & Roediger, III, H. L. (2005, May). Distractor items on multiple-choice tests: Helpful or harmful? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Society, Chicago.
4. Butler A.C., Roediger H.L. Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2007, 19:514-527.
5. Callender A.A., McDaniel M.A. The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2009, 34:30-41.
6. Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009b, November). Self-generated Questions and the testing effect. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston.
7. Carpenter S.K. Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2009, 35:1563-1569.
8. Carpenter S.K., DeLosh E.L. Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34:268-276.
9. Carpenter S.K., Pashler H., Vul E. What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:826-830.
10. Carrier M., Pashler H. The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition 1992, 20:632-642.
11. Dunlosky J., Nelson T.O. Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition 1992, 20:374-380.
12. Gardiner J.M., Craik F.I.M., Bleasdale F.A. Retrieval difficulty and subsequent recall. Memory & Cognition 1973, 1:213-216.
13. Jacoby L.L. On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1978, 17:649-667.
14. Kang S.H.K., McDermott K.B., Roediger H.L. Test format and corrective feedback modulate the effect of testing on memory retention. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2007, 19:528-558.
15. Karpicke J.D., Butler A.C., Roediger H.L. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory 2009, 17:471-479.
16. Karpicke J.D., Roediger H.L. Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:704-719.
17. Karpicke J.D., Roediger H.L. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 2008, 319:966-968.
18. Koriat A., Bjork R.A., Sheffer L., Bar S. Predicting one's own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133:643-656.
19. Kornell N., Son L.K. Learners' choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory 2009, 17:493-501.
20. Martin M.A. Students' applications of self-questioning study techniques: An investigation of their efficacy. Reading Psychology 1985, 6:69-83.
21. McDaniel M.A., Bugg J.M. Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychological Bulletin & Review 2008, 15:237-255.
22. McDaniel M.A., Howard D., Einstein G.O. The read-recite-review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science 2009, 20:516-522.
23. McDaniel M.A., Roediger H.L., McDermott K.B. Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:200-206.
24. Nestojko, J. F., Bui, D. C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E. L. (2009, November). Preparing to teach improves the processing and retention of information. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston.
25. Nungester R.J., Duchastel P.C. Testing versus review: Effects on retention. Journal of Educational Psychology 1982, 74:18-22.
26. Robinson F.P. Effective Study 1970, Harper & Row, New York. 4th ed.
27. Roediger H.L., Karpicke J.D. The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2006, 1:181-210.
28. Roediger H.L., Karpicke J.D. Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science 2006, 17:249-255.
29. Slamecka N.J., Graf P. The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory 1978, 4:592-604.