| Title |
On the learning benefits of confidence-weighted testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-016-0003-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erin M. Sparck, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork, Robert A. Bjork |
| Abstract |
Taking multiple-choice practice tests with competitive incorrect alternatives can enhance performance on related but different questions appearing on a later cued-recall test (Little et al., Psychol Sci 23:1337-1344, 2012). This benefit of multiple-choice testing, which does not occur when the practice test is a cued-recall test, appears attributable to participants attempting to retrieve not only why the correct alternative is correct but also why the other alternatives are incorrect. The present research was designed to examine whether a confidence-weighted multiple-choice format in which test-takers were allowed to indicate their relative confidence in the correctness of one alternative compared with the others (Bruno, J Econ Educ 20:5-22, 1989; Bruno, Item banking: Interactive testing and self-assessment: Volume 112 of NATO ASI Series, pp. 190-209, 1993) might increase the extent to which participants engaged in such productive retrievals. In two experiments, such confidence-weighted practice tests led to greater benefits in the ability of test-takers to answer new but related questions than did standard multiple-choice practice tests. These results point to ways to make multiple-choice testing a more powerful tool for learning. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 39% |
| United States | 5 | 15% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Thailand | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 79% |
| Scientists | 6 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,563,537
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#80
of 371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,085
of 329,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.