Modeling the influence of format and depth during effortful retrieval practice

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2016

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 143-150

  Maass, Jaclyn K ^a   Pavlik, Philip I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Application; Depth of processing; Difficulty; Modeling; Multiple choice; Retrieval practice; Short answer

Indexed keywords

APPLICATIONS; MODELS;

DATA-SOURCE; DIFFICULTY; EFFECTIVE PRACTICES; LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS; MECHANICAL TURKS; MULTIPLE CHOICE; RETRIEVAL PRACTICE; SHORT ANSWER;

DATA MINING;

EID: 85049007416     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Agarwal, P.K., Karpicke, J.D., Kang, S.H., Roediger III, H.L., and McDermott, K.B., 2008. Examining the testing effect with open‐and closed‐book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22, 7, 861-876.
2. Baker, R.S.J.d., D'Mello, S.K., Rodrigo, M.M.T., and Graesser, A.C., 2010. Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68, 4, 223-241. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.003.
3. Baker, R.S.J.d. and Yacef, K., 2009. The State of Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and Future Visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining 1, 1, 3-17.
4. Bjork, R.A., 1994. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, J.M.A.P. Shimamura Ed. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, 185-205.
5. Bjork, R.A., 1999. Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application, D.G.A. Koriat Ed. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, 435-459.
6. Bloom, B.S., 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Education Goals. Cognitive Domain. Handbook 1. Longman.
7. Carrier, M. and Pashler, H., 1992. The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition 20, 6 (Nov), 633-642.
8. Cen, H., Koedinger, K., and Junker, B., 2008. Comparing Two IRT Models for Conjunctive Skills. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 9th International Conference, ITS 2008, Montreal, Canada, June 23-27, 2008 Proceedings, B.P. Woolf, E. Aïmeur, R. Nkambou and S. Lajoie Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 796-798. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_111.
9. Cen, H., Koedinger, K.R., and Junker, B., 2007. Is Over Practice Necessary? – Improving Learning Efficiency with the Cognitive Tutor through Educational Data Mining. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (Los Angeles, CA2007).
10. Craik, F.I., 2002. Levels of processing: Past, present . . . and future? Memory 10, 5-6 (Sep), 305-318.
11. Craik, F.I. and Lockhart, R.S., 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 11, 6 (Dec), 671-684.
12. D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., and Graesser, A., 2014. Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction 29, 153-170.
13. Glover, J.A., 1989. The "testing" phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology 81, 3 (Sep), 392-399.
14. Graesser, A.C. and Person, N.K., 1994. Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal 31, 1, 104-137.
15. Hathorn, L.G. and Rawson, K.A., 2012. The roles of embedded monitoring requests and questions in improving mental models of computer-based scientific text. Computers & Education 59, 3, 1021-1031. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.014.
16. Johnson, C.I. and Mayer, R.E., 2009. A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 101, 3, 621.
17. Kang, H., Thompson, J., and Windschitl, M., 2014. Creating Opportunities for Students to Show What They Know: The Role of Scaffolding in Assessment Tasks. Science Education 98, 4, 674-704. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21123.
18. Kang, S.H., McDermott, K.B., and Roediger III, H.L., 2007. Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19, 4-5, 528-558.
19. Koedinger, K.R., Pavlik Jr., P.I., McLaren, B.M., and Aleven, V., 2008. Is it Better to Give than to Receive? The Assistance Dilemma as a Fundamental Unsolved Problem in the Cognitive Science of Learning and Instruction. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, V. Sloutsky, B. Love and K. McRae Eds., Washington, D.C., 2155-2160.
20. Maass, J.K. and Pavlik Jr, P.I., 2013. Using learner modeling to determine effective conditions of learning for optimal transfer. In Artificial Intelligence in Education Springer, 189-198.
21. Maass, J.K., Pavlik Jr, P.I., and Hua, H., 2015. How Spacing and Variable Retrieval Practice Affect the Learning of Statistics Concepts. In Proceedings of the 17th International Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
22. McDaniel, M.A., Anderson, J.L., Derbish, M.H., and Morrisette, N., 2007. Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19, 4-5, 494-513.
23. Michael, A.L., Klee, T., Bransford, J.D., and Warren, S.F., 1993. The transition form theory to therapy: Test of two instructional methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology 7, 2, 139-153. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070206.
24. Morris, C.D., Bransford, J.D., and Franks, J.J., 1977. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 5, 519-533.
25. Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P.S., 1981. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive skills and their acquisition 1, 1-55.
26. Pavlik Jr., P.I., Cen, H., and Koedinger, K.R., 2009. Performance Factors Analysis -- A New Alternative to Knowledge Tracing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B.d. Boulay and A. Graesser Eds., Brighton, England, 531-538.
27. Pavlik Jr., P.I., Kelly, C., and Maass, J.K., 2016 submitted. Using the Mobile Fact and Concept Training System (MoFaCTS).
28. Pavlik Jr., P.I., Maass, J.K., and Hua, H., 2015, November. Redundancy causes spacing effects. In 56th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.
29. Pyc, M.A. and Rawson, K.A., 2009. Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language 60, 4, 437-447.
30. Roediger III, H.L. and Karpicke, J.D., 2006. The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1, 3, 181-210. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40212166.
31. Smith, M.A. and Karpicke, J.D., 2014. Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid tests. Memory 22, 7, 784-802.
32. Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., and Geban, Ö., 2001. The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students' understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics 101, 2, 91-101.
33. Thompson, C.P., Wenger, S.K., and Bartling, C.A., 1978. How recall facilitates subsequent recall: A reappraisal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory 4, 3 (May), 210-221.
34. Tullis, J.G., Goldstone, R.L., and Hanson, A.J., 2015. Scheduling Scaffolding: The Extent and Arrangement of Assistance During Training Impacts Test Performance. Journal of Motor Behavior 47, 5 (2015/09/03), 442-452. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2015.1008686.
35. Wolfe, M.B., Schreiner, M., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., and Landauer, T.K., 1998. Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25, 2-3, 309-336.