Transfer-appropriate processing

{Transfer-appropriate processing}: information is recalled better when {the type of processing involved in retrieval matches the type of processing involved in encoding} (e.g. Morris et al, 1977)

• Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval Practice Consistently Benefits Student Learning: A Systematic Review of Applied Research in Schools and Classrooms. Educational Psychology Review. find that retrieval practice effects are largest when retrieval practice format (multiple choice, short answer) matches test format—non-matching formats may as much as halve the effect size.
  • But then: who cares? The test isn’t what matters. Authentic performance is what matters. So, if we’re looking at Transfer learning results, in authentic settings, do we see better results with heterogenous Retrieval practice formats? And are those better results worth the experience / authorship costs of multiple choice? e.g. see Self-graded spaced repetition memory systems are more efficient than machine-graded systems
• O’Day, G. M. (2019). Improving Problem Solving with Retrieval-Based Learning \[Unpublished master’s thesis, Purdue University\]\
  • See experiment 2 vs. 3: a testing effect was only found in complex problem solving when practice involved solving problems, rather than just rehearsing the steps; this matches what TAP would predict.
• Agarwal, P. (2019). Retrieval Practice & Bloom’s Taxonomy: Do Students Need Fact Knowledge Before Higher Order Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 189–209
  • Experiment 1 finds retrieval practice of higher-order questions indistinguishable from re-study condition on delayed fact test; likewise for retrieval practice of factual questions on a delayed higher-order test.
  • “In sum, initial retrieval practice enhanced final test performance, but only when the initial quiz type (fact or higher-order) matched the final test type (fact or higher order, respectively).”
  • Other 2 experiments broadly consistent with this finding.

Q. How did Morris et al (1977) demonstrate transfer-appropriate processing?
A. Encoding tasks involved either semantic analysis or rhyming tests; recognition tasks either did or did not involve rhyming. Matched pairs performed better.

Q. What was the counter-intuitive finding of transfer-appropriate processing (Morris et al, 1977)?
A. Acquisition tasks about rhyming (i.e. low depth of processing) performed better than semantic acquisition tasks when the recognition task also involved rhyming.