Dobson John L, Linderholm Tracy, Yarbrough Mary Beth
School of Health and Kinesiology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia; and
Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia.
Adv Physiol Educ. 2015 Dec;39(4):309-14. doi: 10.1152/advan.00052.2015.
Dozens of studies have found learning strategies based on the "testing effect" promote greater recall than those that rely solely on reading; however, the advantages of testing are often only observed after a delay (e.g., 2-7 days later). In contrast, our research, which has focused on kinesiology students learning kinesiology information that is generally familiar to them, has consistently demonstrated that testing-based strategies produce greater recall both immediately and after a delay. In an attempt to understand the discrepancies in the literature, the purpose of the present study was to determine if the time-related advantages of a testing-based learning strategy vary with one's familiarity with the to-be-learned information. Participants used both read-only and testing-based strategies to repeatedly study three different sets of information: 1) previously studied human muscle information (familiar information), 2) a mix of previously studied and previously unstudied human muscle information (mixed information), and 3) previously unstudied muscle information that is unique to sharks (unfamiliar information). Learning was evaluated via free recall assessments administered immediately after studying and again after a 1-wk delay and a 3-wk delay. Across those three assessments, the read-only strategy resulted in mean scores of 29.26 ± 1.43, 15.17 ± 1.29, and 5.33 ± 0.77 for the familiar, mixed, and unfamiliar information, respectively, whereas the testing-based strategy produced scores of 34.57 ± 1.58, 16.90 ± 1.31, and 8.33 ± 0.95, respectively. The results indicate that the testing-based strategy produced greater recall immediately and up through the 3-wk delay regardless of the participants' level of familiarity with the muscle information.
数十项研究发现，基于“测试效应”的学习策略比单纯依靠阅读的策略能促进更好的记忆；然而，测试的优势通常只有在延迟一段时间后（例如，2至7天后）才能观察到。相比之下，我们的研究聚焦于运动机能学专业的学生学习他们通常熟悉的运动机能学信息，一直以来都表明基于测试的策略在即时和延迟后都能产生更好的记忆。为了试图理解文献中的差异，本研究的目的是确定基于测试的学习策略在时间方面的优势是否会因个人对所学信息的熟悉程度而有所不同。参与者使用仅阅读和基于测试的策略反复学习三组不同的信息：1）之前学过的人体肌肉信息（熟悉信息），2）之前学过和未学过的人体肌肉信息的混合（混合信息），以及3）鲨鱼特有的之前未学过的肌肉信息（不熟悉信息）。通过在学习后立即以及在1周延迟和3周延迟后进行的自由回忆评估来评估学习情况。在这三项评估中，仅阅读策略对于熟悉、混合和不熟悉信息的平均得分分别为29.26±1.43、15.17±1.29和5.33±0.77，而基于测试的策略的得分分别为34.57±1.58、16.90±1.31和8.33±0.95。结果表明，无论参与者对肌肉信息的熟悉程度如何，基于测试的策略在即时和长达3周的延迟后都能产生更好的记忆。
