Many professors recommend rereading as a study strategy for exam preparations. However, is it an effective strategy and if so, does the time of the test have an effect? According to earlier research, the performance was better after rereading compared to a single reading on immediate and delayed exams. The objective of identifying effective study strategies is to support lasting, stable learning. The goal of the experiment is to observe rereading effects with an immediate and delayed examination. Secondly, to identify any apprehensions involving intervals between rereading trials including (1) the performance of distributed rereading vs single reading and (2) the performance of distributed rereading vs massed rereading. The anticipation of the study is that distributed rereading yields a more efficient strategy compared to massed rereading.
For the purpose of the study, two experiments were conducted. In experiment one, participates studied a section of an article either once or twice by massed, or twice with a week delay. The test consisted of a recall section and a 12 short-answer comprehension section. It is projected that performance will be best after rereading than after a single reading. Experiment two was a replication of experiment one with exception to the article and test set-up. The participants studied an entire article different to the one used in experiment one and the test consisted of a recall section, 19 short-answer, and fill-in-the-blank questions. It is projected that effects take place on the interactions between the time of restudy and the time of the exam.
Methods
Experiment One. Participation in the study included 235 undergraduates, the majority were of freshman and sophomore standing. Participates were randomly dispersed to one of six investigational groups: single, massed, or distributed study and are manipulated by taking an immediate or delayed exam. An article used was about a method of reducing carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and was divided into five sections. The exam was divided into two sections: a recall (the second of five sections of the article was used) and 12 short-answer questions (all five sections used). The goal of Experiment One is to examine the effect rereading (massed and distributed) versus a single reading has on performance. With that being said, this experiment depicts a correlational experiment by trying to identify the correlational between reading effects and exam performance.
Experiment Two. Participation in the study included 168 undergraduates and was unsystematically assigned to one of six investigational groups: single, massed, and distributed study and are manipulated by taking an immediate or two day delayed exam. An article used was about the history as portrayed by Hollywood films and was divided into five sections. Unlike Experiment One, Experiment Two had a prior knowledge assessment and the exam was divided into three sections: a recall, fill-in-the-blank, and 19 short-answer questions all which used the entire article. The goal of Experiment One is to test the levels hypothesis which infers that lower versus higher level information effects the shift in rereading between the immediate and delayed examination. Furthermore, proving to be a correlational experiment by trying to identify the correlational between level of information with reading effects and exam performance.
Results
Experiment One. Scores for the recall section of the exam were based on idea units accounted for. The recall contained 43 idea units which were from the second section of the article. The 12 short-answer questions were scored either 0 to 1 (partial credit was given) and reported as a percentage. For the recall section, the immediate exam indicated recall was higher after massed reading than after a single reading or distributed rereading although recall on the single reading and distributed rereading had no significant difference. Recall on the immediate exam was better with massed reading rather than distributed rereading.
On the delayed exam, recall on the single reading and massed rereading did not drastically contrast, in fact, the recall was higher on the distributed rereading. Overall, recall performance was noticeably lower with delayed examination versus immediate examination. There was no drastic difference on distributed rereading with neither the delayed nor immediate examination. Comprehension performance shows a substantial effect on the study, time, and interaction.
For comprehension section, the immediate exam showed better comprehension with single reading than after massed rereading whereas single reading and distributed rereading did not differ. In contrast, the delayed exam revealed a greater comprehension with distributed rereading rather than single reading. Inclusively, comprehension performance with either single reading or massed rereading was lower on the delayed examination versus immediate examination. There was no difference on distributed rereading with neither the delayed nor immediate examination. The results support the hypothesis that rereading effects depend upon the delay between reading method and examination. In conclusion, rereading effects depend on the time between study aka readings and exam.
Experiment Two. The scoring for the recall section was similar to Experiment One except the entire article was used. The short-answer questions including the fill-in-the-blank questions were scored either 0 to 1 (partial credit was given) and reported as a percentage. For the recall section, the results from Experiment Two were very similar to Experiment One. On the immediate exam, the recall was higher after massed reading than after a single reading or distributed rereading, whereas recall on the single reading and distributed rereading had no significant difference.
On the delayed exam, recall on the single reading and massed rereading did not drastically differ; in fact, the recall was higher on the distributed rereading rather than single reading or massed rereading. Overall, the recall was worse on delayed examination versus immediate examination with single reading and massed rereading. There was no difference on distributed rereading with neither the delayed nor immediate examination.
On the fill-in-the-blank section, recall after massed rereading was lower on delayed examination yet the delayed examination, showed overall advantages. For the short-answer questions, the immediate exam results show greater performance on massed rereading than single reading whereas single reading and distributed rereading did not differ. On the delayed exam, performance was better with distributed rereading than single reading but the single reading and massed rereading did not vary. Generally, the recall was prominently lower with delayed examination versus immediate examination. There was no drastic difference on distributed rereading with neither the delayed nor immediate examination. Once again, the results support the hypothesis that rereading effects depend upon the delay between reading method and examination. However, the pattern of the results does not support the levels hypothesis.