John Dunlosky’s research while affiliated with Kent State University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (254)


Toward mastering foreign-language translations: transfer between productive and receptive learning
  • Article

September 2024

·

25 Reads

Emma Bernardi

·

·

John Dunlosky

·


Correction to: Emerging and Future Directions in Test‑Enhanced Learning Research
  • Article
  • Publisher preview available

March 2024

·

44 Reads

Educational Psychology Review

View access options


Major types of test-based learning strategies investigated to date. Initial studies focused on relatively simple implementations of retrieval practice. Subsequently, variants of retrieval practice such as interpolated retrieval practice, successive relearning, spaced retrieval practice, and expanding retrieval practice have received attention. Other approaches attracting increasing interest include test-potentiated new learning or forward testing (wherein practice testing leads to enhanced learning of new materials), as well as pretesting and prequestioning (wherein practice testing occurs prior to a new study episode and without any prior studying)
Publication rates for peer-reviewed articles addressing the “testing effect”, “retrieval practice”, and/or “test-enhanced learning” from 1999 to 2022. In total, 1,215 such articles were published during that time frame. Results drawn from topic searches of Clarivate’s Web of Science database conducted in early September 2023
Emerging and Future Directions in Test-Enhanced Learning Research

February 2024

·

635 Reads

·

5 Citations

Educational Psychology Review

Over the past eighteen years, research into test-enhanced learning has expanded significantly and remains vibrant to this day. The fact that many major research questions in the literature have already been addressed, however, raises the question: “What’s next?” That question motivates this special issue. We asked leading researchers in the field to contribute articles highlighting cutting-edge and new directions in test-enhanced learning research. The resulting review papers, empirical articles, and commentaries address many fascinating topics, including: (a) new approaches that are generating insights into test-enhanced learning in relation to other learning techniques (e.g., combining testing with elaborative or generative learning activities); (b) investigations of lesser-known test-based learning strategies that have the potential to enhance educational outcomes (e.g., pretesting and prequestioning, spaced retrieval practice, test-potentiated new learning or forward testing; and successive relearning); (c) new research on effective uses of practice testing during self-regulated learning and in other contexts; and (d) how to promote awareness and acceptance of test-enhanced learning among students and practitioners. These articles showcase some of the most promising new directions in test-enhanced learning research, so we anticipate that this special issue will inspire further investigations of practice testing and its educational applications.



Figure 2. Recall performance as a function of judgment and fixation group in Experiment 1. JOL = judgment of learning. Error bars reflect the standard error of each mean. A 2 (judgment group: no-JOL vs. JOL) × 2 (fixation group: fixation point vs. no-fixation point) between-participants ANOVA revealed that recall was significantly higher for those who made JOLs (M = 0.73, SE = 0.02) than for those who did not make JOLs (M = 0.63, SE = 0.02), F(1,212) = 10.27, p = 0.002, ηp 2 = 0.05. Recall did not significantly differ for those presented with a fixation point during encoding (M = 0.66, SE = 0.02) compared to those who were not presented with a fixation point (M = 0.70, SE = 0.02), F(1,212) = 1.72, p = 0.19, ηp 2 = 0.008. The 2 × 2 interaction was not significant, F(1,212) = 0.27, p = 0.61, ηp 2 = 0.001. Thus, making JOLs benefited recall, whereas a fixation point presented halfway through each encoding episode did not.
Figure 3. Recall performance as a function of group assignment in Experiment 2. JOL = judgment of learning. Error bars reflect the standard error of each mean.
Mean magnitudes of judgments of learning in Experiments 1 and 2.
Continuously Cumulating Meta-Analysis (CCMA) outcomes for cued recall performance.
Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

August 2023

·

74 Reads

·

4 Citations

Journal of Intelligence

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy–cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible “reorienting” effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.


The Effect of Incentives on the Use of Successive Relearning for Retaining Statistics and Epidemiology Concepts in a Medical Research Course

June 2023

·

45 Reads

Successive relearning (SR) combines retrieval practice across spaced study sessions. In particular, students attempt to recall to-be-learned information (with feedback) during each session until all concepts are correctly recalled and then return to the same material to repeat retrieval practice on multiple spaced practice sessions. Thus, students must begin using this technique several weeks before an exam, which may decrease their motivation for using it. The main question for the present research is: Will providing students with a small amount of class credit increase their likelihood of engaging in SR? First-year medical students in a Principles of Medical Research course were provided with an SR program that included (a) virtual flashcards containing definitions of statistical concepts (e.g., levels of measurement, central tendency, odds ratios, etc) that students practiced retrieving, (b) feedback after each retrieval attempt, and (c) schedules for using each virtual flashcard stack across three spaced practice sessions. Students received incentives in terms of class credit to complete SR sessions for half of the content but no incentive for the other half. A delayed practice test was administered to evaluate the impact of SR on retention. Using SR (vs. not using it) did boost retention of the concepts. And, most important, credit had a major impact, with students completing over 90 percent of the SR sessions that were assigned to receive credit but under 10 percent of the SR sessions that were optional.


Coding of Participants' Open-Ended Math Anxiety Responses in (Scheibe et al. 2023).
Metacognitive Cues, Working Memory, and Math Anxiety: The Regulated Attention in Mathematical Problem Solving (RAMPS) Framework

June 2023

·

250 Reads

·

7 Citations

Journal of Intelligence

Mathematical problem solving is a process involving metacognitive (e.g., judging progress), cognitive (e.g., working memory), and affective (e.g., math anxiety) factors. Recent research encourages researchers who study math cognition to consider the role that the interaction between metacognition and math anxiety plays in mathematical problem solving. Problem solvers can make many metacognitive judgments during a math problem, ranging from global judgments such as, “Do I care to solve this problem?” to minor cue-based judgments such as, “Is my current strategy successful in making progress toward the correct solution?” Metacognitive monitoring can hinder accurate mathematical problem solving when the monitoring is task-irrelevant; however, task-relevant metacognitive experiences can lead to helpful control decisions in mathematical problem solving such as checking work, considering plausibility of an answer, and considering alternate strategies. Worry and negative thoughts (i.e., math anxiety) can both interfere with the accuracy of metacognitive experiences as cues in mathematical problem solving and lead to avoidance of metacognitive control decisions that could otherwise improve performance. The current paper briefly reviews and incorporates prior literature with current qualitative reports (n = 673) to establish a novel framework of regulated attention in mathematical problem solving (RAMPS).


Fig. 1 Recall performance as a function of judgment group, pair type, and study-test cycle in Experiment 1a (top) and Experiment 1b (bottom). Note. JOL = judgment of learning. Error bars reflect the standard error of each mean
Fig. 2 Judgment of learning (JOL) reactivity as a function of mean recall performance. Note. JOL reactivity effect = Proportion of items recalled for JOL group -Proportion of items recalled for no-JOL group. Mean recall performance = Average proportion recalled for both the JOL and no-JOL groups. Contributing articles for related and unrelated pair points are noted by an asterisk (*) in the References section. All contributing studies used a similar methodology: a mixed list of related and unrelated word pairs, a between-participant manipulation of JOL and no-JOLs, experimenter-paced study, and a cued-recall criterion test. Category and letter pair data points come from Experiments 1a and 1b of the current investigation
Fig. 3 Unobserved psychophysical functions relating memory (with or without judgments of learning (JOLs)) to cued-recall performance (proportion correctly recalled) for letter and category pairs. Note. Scale for memory is arbitrary except that higher values indicate higher levels of memory. Solid line represents a function that
Fig. 5 Recall Performance as a Function of Judgment Group, Pair Type, and Test Group in Experiment 3. Note. JOL = judgment of learning. Error bars reflect the standard error of each mean
Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items

May 2023

·

227 Reads

·

9 Citations

Memory & Cognition

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem – Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja – Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.


Screenshot from the self-regulated learning groups, showing participants’ three options for each item
Mean number of correct responses per item (i.e., criterion reached) for participants in the self-regulated learning group that had access to multiple-choice practice questions (SRL-MC) and the self-regulated learning group that had access to cued-recall practice questions (SRL-CR). Error bars report standard error of the mean
Mean performance on the cued-recall final test for the self-regulated learning (SRL) groups and for each of the three criterion levels in the criterion groups, separated by Experiment 1 (two-day delay) and Experiment 2 (seven-day delay). MC practice and CR practice refer to the type of practice test questions that a participant completed in Session 1. Error bars report standard error of the mean
Mean performance on the multiple-choice final test for the self-regulated learning (SRL) groups and for each of the three criterion levels in the criterion groups, separated by Experiment 1 (two-day delay) and Experiment 2 (seven-day delay). MC practice and CR practice refer to the type of practice test questions that a participant completed in Session 1. Error bars report standard error of the mean
Mean Session 1 practice time per item (in seconds) for the self-regulated learning (SRL) groups and for each of the three criterion levels in the criterion groups. MC practice and CR practice refer to the type of practice test questions that a participant completed in Session 1. Error bars report standard error of the mean
How do Students Regulate Their Use of Multiple Choice Practice Tests?

March 2023

·

134 Reads

·

3 Citations

Educational Psychology Review

Unlabelled: Multiple-choice practice tests are beneficial for learning, and students encounter multiple-choice questions regularly. How do students regulate their use of multiple-choice practice testing? And, how effective is students' use of multiple-choice practice testing? In the current experiments, undergraduate participants practiced German-English word pairs. Students started with an initial study trial for each pair. Then, they had the options to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove it from further practice. For comparison to students' use of multiple-choice practice questions, we included a second self-regulated group that had access to cued-recall practice questions. Participants chose to complete multiple-choice questions until they correctly answered each item about one time during practice, similar to students' use of cued-recall questions. We also included experimenter-controlled groups in which participants completed practice tests until they reached a higher number of correct answers during practice. As compared to the experimenter-controlled groups, participants who regulated their use of multiple-choice questions scored lower on final tests but also spent less time practicing items. Thus, when considering final test performance in relation to time spent practicing, students' choices to use multiple-choice practice questions to about one correct answer per item was comparatively effective. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10648-023-09761-1.


Citations (86)


... Practice testing improves memory. Over a century of research and hundreds of studies have shown that attempting to recall information after it has been studied, or retrieval practice, benefits long-term memory retention of that information (Roediger & Butler, 2011;Rowland, 2014; see also Pan et al., 2024). More recently, a smaller but growing literature has shown that taking practice tests before information has been studied, a strategy known as pretesting (and sometimes errorful generation, failed testing, or unsuccessful testing), can also enhance long-term memory (e.g., Kornell et al., 2009; for reviews see Kornell & Vaughn, 2016;Metcalfe, 2017;Pan & Carpenter, 2023). ...

Reference:

Do individual differences in working memory capacity, episodic memory ability, or fluid intelligence moderate the pretesting effect?
Emerging and Future Directions in Test-Enhanced Learning Research

Educational Psychology Review

... Switching from self-to peer assessment allows individuals to avoid engaging with their own errors, removing the inherent challenges, which could affect their error awareness. Additionally, it allows for plannable and scalable learning activities, as are needed in science classrooms (Morris et al., 2024). So far, few studies have looked at students' self-and peer assessment in the context of experimentation (Schreiber, 2016;Schreiber & Theyssen, 2019), much less their error awareness in the design of their own experiments or experiments conducted by someone else. ...

Learning the control-of-variables strategy during an informal science lesson on popping popcorn

... The act of making JOL intentionally or unintentionally affects memory retention, a phenomenon termed JOL reactivity, which has been relevant since the delayed JOL effect was initially discovered [27,15]. To elucidate this, a meta-analysis by Double et al. highlighted that making immediate JOLs leads to a moderate positive JOL reactive effect on cue-recall performance (i.e., JOL increases memory retention), especially for strongly semantic-related cue-target pairs [28]. ...

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

Journal of Intelligence

... This finding may indicate the presence of mathematical anxiety within the experimental group. Research has shown that students with elevated levels of anxiety in mathematics are more susceptible to underperforming in their math-related studies (Jameson et al., 2022;Lau et al., 2022;Maldonado Moscoso et al., 2022;Scheibe et al., 2023). Consequently, it becomes crucial to explore strategies to alleviate these anxieties and promote a positive learning environment. ...

Metacognitive Cues, Working Memory, and Math Anxiety: The Regulated Attention in Mathematical Problem Solving (RAMPS) Framework

Journal of Intelligence

... Further work has also shown that JOLs improved item recognition of targets (e.g., Did you study DOCTOR?), but only for items studied in related pairs (Myers et al., 2020). Additionally, JOL reactivity has not been observed when participants are given cues that do not support later test performance (Double, 2023;Rivers et al., 2023). ...

Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items

Memory & Cognition

... An empirical study by Badali et al. (2023) and a commentary by Murphy et al. (2023) provide useful insights into how practice testing can be applied more effectively. Badali et al. investigates how learners use multiple-choice practice tests during self-regulated learning and researcher-controlled conditions, and in so doing provides preliminary answers to the question, Do students' regulate their use of testing in an effective manner? ...

How do Students Regulate Their Use of Multiple Choice Practice Tests?

Educational Psychology Review

... testing (Bjork et al., 2013;Rivers et al., 2022;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). A recent review conducted by Rivers (2021), which aggregated results across 10 questionnaire studies (N = 4240), showed that most (52%) students simply regarded testing as an assessment tool to capture their current level of mastery, with only 26% of them considering testing as an effective learning strategy. ...

What constrains people's ability to learn about the testing effect through task experience?

... Therefore, students must correct errors in their understanding before the final test. Similar research on successive relearning has revealed that engaging in retrieval practice across several spaced sessions until one achieves a criterion (e.g., three correct retrievals of each item) can lead to significant, durable memory improvements (Bahrick, 1979;Rawson & Dunlosky, 2011, 2022Rawson et al., 2018), including on applicationbased questions (Badali & Greve, 2023). Participants in these studies were incentivized to complete the quizzes through payment. ...

Successive Relearning: An Underexplored but Potent Technique for Obtaining and Maintaining Knowledge
  • Citing Article
  • July 2022

Current Directions in Psychological Science

... This, however, cannot be observed on the surface-level but requires that learners (a) infer which idea units of the concept are illustrated in which parts of the standard and their own examples, (b) infer which features of the illustration in the standard is crucial for a quality illustration and then (c) infer whether these features are present in their own illustrations as well. Even when this process is supported by the provision of multiple standards (e.g., multiple correct examples that differ regarding surface features), which can help learners identifying structural features (e.g., Renkl, 2014;Schalk et al., 2020), this task likely is challenging for learners, who often tend to focus on surface features when comparing correct solutions to a task such as worked examples (Renkl, 2014; see also Wissman et al., 2023). ...

Enhancing Declarative Concept Application: The Utility of Examples as Primary Targets of Learning

Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied

... Unfortunately, in many situations, learners do not always implement their study plans. For instance, Badali et al. (2022) found that, even though participants made a clear plan to recall difficult items more times before dropping them from a study list, actually the number of correct recalls during the study phase was roughly equal between easy and difficult items, suggesting that learners do not always commit to their study plans during self-regulated learning. ...

Do Students Effectively Regulate Their Use of Self-Testing as a Function of Item Difficulty?

Educational Psychology Review