Short-answer (production) and multiple-choice (recognition) retrieval practice produce no statistically significant difference in undergraduates' reading comprehension on a final MCQ test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In one classroom experiment, reading comprehension did not differ significantly between production-test and recognition-test retrieval practice (F(1, 98) = 1.31, p = .255); equivalence was not tested. → Nero 2021

Evidence¶

Nero 2021¶

Nero, C. A., & Zulkiply, N. (2021). The Effects of Retrieval Practice Across Levels of Thinking and Retention Interval on Reading Comprehension. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 17(4). https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i4.16222

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Classroom experiment with 100 first-year Cognitive Psychology undergraduates in a 2 x 2 x 2 mixed-subjects design, analysed with a three-way mixed ANOVA on final multiple-choice test scores. The article reports "no significant difference in students’ reading comprehension across the different types of retrieval practice", F(1, 98) = 1.31, p = .255; descriptive means were 2.83 (production) and 2.72 (recognition).

"The results showed that there was no significant difference in students’ reading comprehension across the different types of retrieval practice (production test vs. recognition test), F(1, 98) = 1.31, p = .255."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Retrieval Practice Improves Learning
• Retrieval practice and spaced retrieval improve achievement and retention by medium amounts, while interleaving helps category learning only for some materials and blocking beats it for words
• The effect of retrieval practice format on reading comprehension does not differ significantly between an immediate and a three-week-delayed final test — related
• Final-test reading comprehension after retrieval practice does not differ significantly between an immediate test and a test delayed by three weeks — related
• Retrieval practice format, levels of thinking and retention interval show no significant three-way interaction on undergraduates' reading comprehension — related
• The effect of retrieval practice format on reading comprehension does not differ significantly between lower-order and higher-order thinking questions — related
• The effect of retention interval on reading comprehension after retrieval practice does not differ significantly between lower-order and higher-order thinking questions — related
• Evidence on whether initial short-answer questions produce more learning than initial multiple-choice questions is mixed, with recent studies finding little or no difference — related
• Initial short-answer tests outperform initial multiple-choice tests mainly when feedback follows them; without feedback, the higher initial success of multiple-choice tests can favor multiple-choice — related
• The classroom testing effect transfers to mismatched test formats, but consistent quiz–exam formats yield a significantly larger effect (g = 0.531 vs. g = 0.399). — related
• Practice test format moderates the testing effect: mixed-format (g = 0.80) and multiple-choice (g = 0.70) practice tests produced larger effects than short-answer tests (g = 0.48) — reports the opposite
• Testing effects are stronger when practice and final test formats are identical (g = 0.63) than dissimilar (g = 0.53), supporting transfer-appropriate processing — related
• Spoken–written advantages are larger for retention outcomes and multiple-choice test formats than for transfer or mixed formats — related