SpringerLink
Log in

Answering questions after initial study guides attention during restudy

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though the testing-effect can be boosted by including a restudy phase after answering test questions, we do not know precisely why it does so. One possible explanation is being tested here. The present study measured attention allocation during initial reading and rereading with a remote eye tracker to gain information on the cognitive processes during restudy, with and without prior testing. The results show that at the final study moment, students in the study-test-condition attended longer to information pertaining to the initial test questions as compared to students in the study-only condition (i.e., who did not take the test). No differences in attention allocation were found for information only questioned on a posttest 1 week later. In addition, it was found that performance on the initial test questions heavily affected which information students restudy; students in the study-test-condition paid namely more attention to the answers of questions they answered incorrectly during the initial test than to the answers of the questions they answered correctly on the initial test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Independent sample t tests were used because there was no significant correlation between dwell time on targeted and non-targeted AOIs and between performance on identical and new posttest questions.

References

  • Andre, T. (1979). Does answering high-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 280–318. doi:10.3102/00346543049002280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisanz, G. L., Vesonder, G. T., & Voss, J. F. (1978). Knowledge of one’s own responding and the relation of such knowledge to learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 116–128. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(78)90042-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Angliskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2.

  • Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633–642. doi:10.3758/BF03202713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerdán, R., Vidal- Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gill, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning & Instruction, 19, 13–27. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirkx, K. J. H., Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The testing effect for learning principles and procedures from texts. The Journal of Educational Research, 1–8. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.823370/

  • Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6(40), 1–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S., & Rakestraw, J. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III, pp. 311–335). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T. (1971). Feedback and sentence learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 23–28. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80088-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives. Review of Educational Research, 55, 47–85. doi:10.3102/00346543055001047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2006). On the relationship between assessment for summative and formative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 103–118). London, England: Sage Publications ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., Niemi, P., & Underwood, G. (1989). Reading long words embedded in sentences: Informativeness of word halves affects eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 142–152. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.15.1.142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008–1022. doi:10.1111/cogs.12107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Toh, P. L. L. (2013). Productive failure: From an experimental effect to a learning design. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research–Part B: Illustrative cases (pp. 341–355). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469–486. doi:10.1037/a0017341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L, I. I. I. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. doi:10.1080/09658210802647009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 401–418. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L, I. I. I. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151–162. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kausler, D. H., Laughlin, P. R., & Trapp, E. P. (1963). Effects of incentive-set on relevant and irrelevant (incidental) learning in children. Child Development, 34(1), 195–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1963.tb06021.x.

  • Kausler, D. H., & Trapp, E. P. (1962). Effects of incentive-set and task variables on relevant and irrelevant learning in serial verbal learning. Psychological Report, 10, 451–457. doi:10.2466/PR0.10.2.451-457.

  • Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989–998. doi:10.1037/a0015729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Blischak, D. M., & Challis, B. (1994). The effects of test expectancy on processing and memory of prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 230–248. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 530–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 333–335. doi:10.1126/science.1191465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.2.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L, I. I. I., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 15, 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L, I. I. I., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 1–36). Oxford: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691–710. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf, E. Z. (1966). Learning from written instructive materials: An exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test-like events. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 241–249. doi:10.3102/00028312003004241.  

  • Rothkopf, E. Z., & Bisbicos, E. E. (1967). Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 56–61. doi:10.1037/h0024117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 641–656. doi:10.1037/h0063404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. T., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1024–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205–221. doi:10.1002/acp.1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95–99. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1998, July). The role of question type on learning from scientific text. Paper presented at the Meeting on Comprehension and Production of Scientific Texts, Aveiro, Portugal.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Fontys Educatief Centrum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Kim J. H. Dirkx

  2. CELSTEC, Open University in the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Kim J. H. Dirkx, Liesbeth Kester & Paul. A. Kirschner

  3. Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany

    Gun-Brit Thoma

Authors
  1. Kim J. H. Dirkx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gun-Brit Thoma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liesbeth Kester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul. A. Kirschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim J. H. Dirkx.

Appendix

Appendix

The probability definition contains different symbols. The symbol P for example stands for probability and G stands for the situation for which you want to calculate the probability, such as the situation of throwing two (sum is two) with two dice. How do you calculate this probability? When you throw two dice, there are 6 × 6 = 36 possible outcomes (sum scores), because every dice has six sides, each with a different number of dots. For the situation (G) ‘sum is two’ there is only one possibility, namely that you throw one with the first dice and one with the second. Thus, there is only one possible outcome for ‘sum is two’ and 36 possible outcomes of throwing two dice. According to the formula P (sum is two) = 1/36.

Initial test question

Posttest question

What does the symbol G in the formula stand for?

In the probability definition the symbol P is included. Wherefore stands P?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dirkx, K.J.H., Thoma, GB., Kester, L. et al. Answering questions after initial study guides attention during restudy. Instr Sci 43, 59–71 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9330-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9330-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation