Cargando…
How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves
Testing oneself (i.e., doing retrieval practice) is an effective way to study. We attempted to make learners choose to test themselves more often. In Experiment 1, participants were asked how they wanted to study and were given four options: retrieval with no hint (e.g., idea: ______), a two-letter...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6757086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31549261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0187-y |
_version_ | 1783453513194405888 |
---|---|
author | Vaughn, Kalif E. Kornell, Nate |
author_facet | Vaughn, Kalif E. Kornell, Nate |
author_sort | Vaughn, Kalif E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Testing oneself (i.e., doing retrieval practice) is an effective way to study. We attempted to make learners choose to test themselves more often. In Experiment 1, participants were asked how they wanted to study and were given four options: retrieval with no hint (e.g., idea: ______), a two-letter hint (e.g., idea: s____r), a four-letter hint (e.g., idea: se__er), or a presentation trial (e.g., idea: seeker). They tested themselves on the majority of trials. In Experiment 2, when the hint options were removed, they chose restudy rather than pure test on the majority of trials. These findings show that people prefer self-testing over restudy as long as they can get the answer right on the test. However, we would not recommend hints if they impaired learning compared to pure testing. Experiment 3 showed that this was not the case; the three retrieval conditions from Experiment 1 led to equivalent amounts of learning, and all three outperformed the pure presentation condition. We used different materials in Experiment 4 and found that the hints made retrieval slightly less beneficial when the hints made it possible to guess the answers without thinking back to the study phase (e.g., whip: pu__sh). In summary, hints catalyzed people’s intuitive desire to self-test, without any downside for learning, thus making their self-regulated study more enjoyable and effective. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6757086 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67570862019-10-07 How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves Vaughn, Kalif E. Kornell, Nate Cogn Res Princ Implic Original Article Testing oneself (i.e., doing retrieval practice) is an effective way to study. We attempted to make learners choose to test themselves more often. In Experiment 1, participants were asked how they wanted to study and were given four options: retrieval with no hint (e.g., idea: ______), a two-letter hint (e.g., idea: s____r), a four-letter hint (e.g., idea: se__er), or a presentation trial (e.g., idea: seeker). They tested themselves on the majority of trials. In Experiment 2, when the hint options were removed, they chose restudy rather than pure test on the majority of trials. These findings show that people prefer self-testing over restudy as long as they can get the answer right on the test. However, we would not recommend hints if they impaired learning compared to pure testing. Experiment 3 showed that this was not the case; the three retrieval conditions from Experiment 1 led to equivalent amounts of learning, and all three outperformed the pure presentation condition. We used different materials in Experiment 4 and found that the hints made retrieval slightly less beneficial when the hints made it possible to guess the answers without thinking back to the study phase (e.g., whip: pu__sh). In summary, hints catalyzed people’s intuitive desire to self-test, without any downside for learning, thus making their self-regulated study more enjoyable and effective. Springer International Publishing 2019-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6757086/ /pubmed/31549261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0187-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Vaughn, Kalif E. Kornell, Nate How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
title | How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
title_full | How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
title_fullStr | How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
title_full_unstemmed | How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
title_short | How to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
title_sort | how to activate students’ natural desire to test themselves |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6757086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31549261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0187-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vaughnkalife howtoactivatestudentsnaturaldesiretotestthemselves AT kornellnate howtoactivatestudentsnaturaldesiretotestthemselves |