Practice quizzing; Practice testing; Adaptation; Note-taking; Cognitive load
Résumé :
[en] Background: In the domain of psychology, declarative concepts are a core component of the foundational knowledge that is to be learned. A promising means to enhance retention and comprehension of such concepts is to provide learners with open-ended quiz questions and corrective feedback (i.e., practice quizzing). As adapting quiz question complexity to the individual learners can increase the benefits of practice quizzing, in previous research adaptations based on the real-time process measures of cognitive load ratings and of self-assessed quizzing performance during quizzing have been developed. To date, however, it is unclear whether and, if so, why the two types of adaptation differ in their effectiveness.
Aims: The main goal of the present study was to compare the two adaptation mechanisms in learning declarative psychology concepts via practice quizzing.
Sample: Participants were N = 177 university students.
Methods: After watching an e-lecture on new declarative psychology concepts, the learners were randomly assigned to either note-taking or to responding to quiz questions. The complexity of the quiz questions was increased either according to a preset sequence, or dependent on subjective cognitive load, self-assessed quizzing
performance, or both.
Results: Cognitive-load-adapted quizzing was most effective. These benefits were mediated via higher levels of knowledge whenever increases in quiz question complexity were suggested by the adaptation mechanism/took place in the preset sequence, which fostered quizzing performance, which, in turn, fostered learning outcomes.
Conclusions: This study shows that simple cognitive load ratings are a promising basis for adapting practice quizzing in learning declarative psychology concepts.
Disciplines :
Education & enseignement
Auteur, co-auteur :
Obergassel, Niklas
Heitmann, Svenja
GRUND, Axel ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > LUCET
Fries, Stefan
Berthold, Kirsten
Roelle, Julian
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Adaptation of quizzing in learning psychology concepts
Adesope, O.O., Trevisan, D.A., Sundararajan, N., Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research 87:3 (2017), 659–701, 10.3102/0034654316689306.
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Door-in-the-face technique. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved October 17, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/door-in-the-face-technique.
Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y., Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple hypothesis testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 57:1 (1995), 289–300, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
Carpenter, S.K., DeLosh, E.L., Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition 34:2 (2006), 268–276, 10.3758/BF03193405.
Cho, H.-C., Abe, S., Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate?. Journal of Business Research 66:9 (2013), 1261–1266, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.023.
Corbalan, G., Kester, L., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33:4 (2008), 733–756 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.003.
Dunlosky, J., Hartwig, M.K., Rawson, K.A., Lipko, A.R., Improving college students' evaluation of text learning using idea-unit standards. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64:3 (2011), 467–484, 10.1080/17470218.2010.502239.
Eysenck, H.J., The concept of statistical significance and the controversy about one-tailed tests. Psychological Review 67:4 (1960), 269–271, 10.1037/h0048412.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., Buchner, A., G∗Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39:2 (2007), 175–191, 10.3758/BF03193146.
Froese, L., Roelle, J., Expert example but not negative example standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples. Metacognition and Learning 18 (2023), 923–944, 10.1007/s11409-023-09347-w.
Froese, L., Roelle, J., How to support self-assessment through standards in dissimilar-solution-tasks. Learning and Instruction, 94, 2024, 101998, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101998.
Furr, R.M., Rosenthal, R., Evaluating theories efficiently: The nuts and bolts of contrast analysis. Understanding Statistics 2:1 (2003), 45–67, 10.1207/S15328031US0201_03.
Golke, S., Steininger, T., Wittwer, J., What makes learners overestimate their text comprehension? The impact of learner characteristics on judgment bias. Educational Psychology Review 34:4 (2022), 2405–2450, 10.1007/s10648-022-09687-0.
Goularte, F.B., Nassar, S.M., Fileto, R., Saggion, H., A text summarization method based on fuzzy rules and applicable to automated assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 115 (2019), 264–275, 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.047.
Greving, S., Lenhard, W., Richter, T., Adaptive retrieval practice with multiple-choice questions in the university classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36:6 (2020), 799–809, 10.1111/jcal.12445.
Grund, A., Fries, S., Nückles, M., Renkl, A., Roelle, J., When is learning „effortful“? Scrutinizing the concept of mental effort in cognitively oriented research from a motivational perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 36(11), 2024, 10.1007/s10648-024-09852-7.
Hales, A.H., One-tailed tests: Let's do this (responsibly). Psychological Methods. 2023, Advance online publication, 10.1037/met0000610.
Hayes, A.F., Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2013, Guilford Press.
Heitmann, S., Grund, A., Berthold, K., Fries, S., Roelle, J., Testing is more desirable when it is adaptive and still desirable when compared to note-taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2018, 2596, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02596.
Heitmann, S., Grund, A., Fries, S., Berthold, K., Roelle, J., The quizzing effect depends on hope of success and can be optimized by cognitive load-based adaptation. Learning and Instruction, 77, 2022, 101526, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101526.
Heitmann, S., Obergassel, N., Fries, S., Grund, A., Berthold, K., Roelle, J., Adaptive practice quizzing in a university lecture: A pre-registered field experiment. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 10:4 (2021), 603–620, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.07.008.
Hoogerheide, V., Renkl, A., Fiorella, L., Paas, F., van Gog, T., Enhancing example-based learning: Teaching on video increases arousal and improves problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 111:1 (2019), 45–56, 10.1037/edu0000272.
Jones, L.V., Test of hypotheses: One-sided vs. two-sided alternatives. Psychological Bulletin 49:1 (1952), 43–46, 10.1037/h0056832.
Kalyuga, S., Rapid assessment of learners' proficiency: A cognitive load approach. Educational Psychology 26:6 (2006), 735–749, 10.1080/01443410500342674.
Lachner, A., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., Renkl, A., Learning-by-teaching without audience presence or interaction: When and why does it work?. Educational Psychology Review 34:2 (2022), 575–607, 10.1007/s10648-021-09643-4.
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., Licata, L., Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49:4 (2013), 764–766, 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013.
Libarkin, J., Concept inventories in higher education science. 2008, National Research Council Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Workshop. 2.
Lombardi, C.M., Hurlbert, S.H., Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests. Austral Ecology 34:4 (2009), 447–468, 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.01946.x.
Pan, S.C., Rickard, T.C., Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 144:7 (2018), 710–756, 10.1037/bul0000151.
Plass, J.L., Pawar, S., Toward a taxonomy of adaptivity for learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 52:3 (2020), 275–300, 10.1080/15391523.2020.1719943.
Pyc, M.A., Rawson, K.A., Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory?. Journal of Memory and Language 60:4 (2009), 437–447, 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004.
Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., van den Noortgate, W., Depaepe, F., Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students' engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education, 143, 2020, 103682, 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682.
Rawson, K.A., Dunlosky, J., When is practice testing most effective for improving the durability and efficiency of student learning?. Educational Psychology Review 24:3 (2012), 419–435, 10.1007/s10648-012-9203-1.
Rawson, K.A., Thomas, R.C., Jacoby, L.L., The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review 27:3 (2015), 483–504, 10.1007/s10648-014-9273-3.
Roelle, J., Endres, T., Abel, R., Obergassel, N., Nückles, M., Renkl, A., Happy together? On the relationship between research on retrieval practice and generative learning using the case of follow-up learning tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 2023, 102, 10.1007/s10648-023-09810-9.
Roelle, J., Froese, L., Krebs, R., Obergassel, N., Waldeyer, J., Sequence matters! Retrieval practice before generative learning is more effective than the reverse order. Learning and Instruction, 80, 2022, 101634, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101634.
Roelle, J., Lehmkuhl, N., Beyer, M.-U., Berthold, K., The role of specificity, targeted learning activities, and prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology 107:3 (2015), 705–723, 10.1037/edu0000010.
Roelle, J., Rahimkhani-Sagvand, N., Berthold, K., Detrimental effects of immediate explanation feedback. European Journal of Psychology of Education 32:3 (2017), 367–384, 10.1007/s10212-016-0317-6.
Roelle, J., Schweppe, J., Endres, T., Lachner, A., von Aufschnaiter, C., Renkl, A., Eitel, A., Leutner, D., Rummer, R., Scheiter, K., Vorholzer, A., Combining retrieval practice and generative learning in educational contexts: Promises and challenges. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 54 (2022), 142–150, 10.1026/0049-8637/a000261.
Rowland, C.A., The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin 140:6 (2014), 1432–1463, 10.1037/a0037559.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Paas, F., Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review 31:2 (2019), 261–292, 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.
Sychev, O., Anikin, A., Prokudin, A., Automatic grading and hinting in open-ended text questions. Cognitive Systems Research 59 (2020), 264–272, 10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.09.025.
APA Task Force on Statistical Inference Wilkinson, L., Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist 54:8 (1999), 594–604, 10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594.
Yang, C., Luo, L., Vadillo, M.A., Yu, R., Shanks, D.R., Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 147:4 (2021), 399–435, 10.1037/bul0000309.
Zamary, A., Rawson, K.A., Are provided examples or faded examples more effective for declarative concept learning?. Educational Psychology Review 30:3 (2018), 1167–1197, 10.1007/s10648-018-9433-y.
Zamary, A., Rawson, K.A., Dunlosky, J., How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction 46 (2016), 12–20, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.002.
