Although restudying is widely thought as the most effective learning strategy, it has been argued that repeated testing rather than restudying is more effective for learning information. Consequently, this paper focuses on establishing the most effective strategy to study for exams by comparing the effectiveness of repeated testing, specifically self-testing and restudying when preparing for exams by the students. The conclusion drawn in this paper is based on the findings of past researchers' efforts to evaluate the mnemonic benefits of the two study methods. From the evaluation of evidence from past experiments, it is crystal-clear that repeated self-testing is beneficial for learning factual information to be used in the context of recognition based assessments, specifically multiple choice exams as compared to restudying.
Keywords: retrieval practice, self-regulated learning, mnemonic, repeated testing, repeated studying.
Introduction
In the modern education system, there are numerous strategies employed to facilitate the process of studying not only to the college and university students but also to the elementary level learners. The commonly used strategies in the education sector comprise the retrieval practice otherwise known as self-testing, the restudying strategy amongst others. Retrieval practice is basically engaging the memory in already studied information through testing to enhance the long-retention of the information while restudying, on the other hand, refers to the repeated study of information to facilitate learning. This self-testing as a study strategy has in the recent past brought lots of contentions regarding whether it is effective or ineffective in studying or exam preparation. This essay, therefore, is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of self-testing as a strategy for exam preparation as compared to the other studying strategies. This is made successful by the numerous experiments and research conducted in the recent past concerning the strategies. The discussion will majorly delve into three research conducted by Karpicke and Roediger, Hartwig and Dunlosky as well as Tran, Rohrer, and Pashler to substantiate the arguments on the topic as depicted below;
The Effectiveness of Self-Testing as a Study Strategy
Why Self-Testing is Effective
According to the research conducted by Hartwig and Dunlosky, where 324 students were recruited from KSU Participant pool and in turn directed to fill out a survey with the main objective of finding out whether the results conform to those of Kornell and Bjork (2007). In this experiment, it was deduced that most college students focus on the self-testing strategy majorly to oversee their study advancement in their colleges. The use of self-testing strategy is reported according to the research to not only boost performance of the students when it is overseen by a qualified trainers of the field or an able teacher but also inclines towards the success of the respective students when they are put into use abruptly for purposes of academic progression (Hartwig " Dunlosky, 2012). Moreover, the research showed that there is a special relationship between self-testing strategy and the GPA for the students. This was shown by the fact that almost all the successful students who were present in the experiment employ self-testing strategy as their mode of study. Furthermore, the research draws the reader’s attention on the widespread benefits of self-testing. For instance, self-testing by the act of remembering the main information increases performance on the succeeding recalls and the multiple choice questions of the main information not forgetting its boosting of performance on comprehension perspective.
Additionally, according to Karpicke and Roediger’s experiment that comprised college students with equivalent cumulative learning performance who were supposed to grasp a total of 40 Swahili word pairs under a certain set of four conditions there is an aspect of self-testing effectiveness. In the standard condition, both studying and testing were embraced, in the second condition once a pair was recalled it was dropped from the further study but was tested in each subsequent test periods. In the third condition, recalled pairs were dropped from further testing but studied while in the fourth condition both testing and studying were dropped and the students were to recall the 40 pairs after one week. The main aim was to identify the condition that will retain for a long time. Although the cumulative learning performance was equivalent in the four conditions, there was a big variation on recall after one week. This experiment proved that testing is the avoidance of studying is the main aspect of promoting prolonged recall. (Karpicke " Roediger, 2008). In the same vein, a repeated study after only one prosperous recall did not give rise to any substantial learning a week afterward. In the studying environment that is in need of over and over again retrieval practice, students managed to rightly remember an approximate of about 80% of the pairs of the last test. On the other underlying condition in which certain variables were dropped from over and over again testing, students were only able to recall a relatively small percentage of 36% and 33% of the pairs. This distinctively shows the effectiveness of the self-test in information retaining capability.
Why Self-Test is Ineffective
In relation to Tran, Rohrer and Pashler’s four experiments to identify whether the benefits of retrieval practice review transfer to solving the deductive inference questions. In the 4 experiments that were conducted, the contributors were able to grasp various establishments in relation to the 4 imaginary scenarios and were later requested to make inferential inferences that were pegged on the inferences. The participants reviewed half of the scenarios by rereading, and the other half by covertly recalling or typing the missing keywords from each premise. Despite the various attempts to modify the methods in ways that might elicit retrieval practice benefits, there was zero gain in the transfer tests (Tran, Rohrer, " Pashler, 2015). The absence of testing benefits on transfer superficially contrasts with the results of Butler (2010). This outcome fails to recognize self-test as an effective strategy since most of its experiments turned negative in relation to the self-test. It, therefore, goes against the numerous odds that support self-test as being effective up to including Butler.
Critical Analysis of the Literature
Regarding the present result on the article by Tran, Rohrer, and Pashler, testing is actually a useful technique for promoting the information acquisition, but it is limited in the sense that there is no elaborate revelation concerning when it does and when it does not facilitate the transfer of learning. The article on the other side has shown consistency in the experiments it has portrayed to support its argument. Out of the four experiments, three fail to be positive. My stand cannot, therefore, change in any way. Another limitation is seen in the article of Hartwig and Dunlosky where the strategies that best predicted GPA were only weakly predictive. This generally meant that students’ strategy choices have little consequences for their grades. Future research ought to overcome this limitation with test-reset methods, longitudinal follow-ups amongst others. This article, however, has solid facts to prove that indeed self-test is a milestone in the learning sector like longer retention of information amongst others.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the benefits of self-testing from the research conducted in the three articles with experiments to support the theories include; monitoring of learning progress, boosting of student’s performance, is highly in relation to the student’s success when used spontaneously for academic learning and lastly promote long-term recall for the students who are studying. The evidence against the effectiveness of self-testing is that it sees zero gain in terms of the transfer tests. Consequently, there are a number of limitations from the articles used to write the essay but they are not so intense to enable change of stand on self-testing. From the above discussion, the weighty points to support that self-testing as a genuinely effective studying strategy, according to my assessment, outdo those that are against and therefore I am for the opinion that self-testing is very effective as a study strategy.
References
Hartwig, M.K., " Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study Strategies of College Students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievements? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 126-134. doi: 10. 3758/s. 13423-011-0181-y
Karpicke, J. D., " Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968. doi:10.1126/science.115240
Tran, R., Rohrer, D., " Pashler, H. (2015). Retrieval practice: the lack of transfer to deductive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin " Review, 22(1), 135-140.8 doi: 10.3758/s13423 014-0646-x
