Providing extrinsic reward for test performance undermines long-term memory acquisition

Based on numerous studies showing that testing studied material can improve long-term retention more than restudying the same material, it is often suggested that the number of tests in education should be increased to enhance knowledge acquisition. However, testing in real-life educational settings often entails a high degree of extrinsic motivation of learners due to the common practice of placing important consequences on the outcome of a test. Such an effect on the motivation of learners may undermine the beneficial effects of testing on long-term memory because it has been shown that extrinsic motivation can reduce the quality of learning. To examine this issue, participants learned foreign language vocabulary words, followed by an immediate test in which one-third of the words were tested and one-third restudied. To manipulate extrinsic motivation during immediate testing, participants received either monetary reward contingent on test performance or no reward. After 1 week, memory for all words was tested. In the immediate test, reward reduced correct recall and increased commission errors, indicating that reward reduced the number of items that can benefit from successful retrieval. The results in the delayed test revealed that reward additionally reduced the gain received from successful retrieval because memory for initially successfully retrieved words was lower in the reward condition. However, testing was still more effective than restudying under reward conditions because reward undermined long-term memory for concurrently restudied material as well. These findings indicate that providing performance–contingent reward in a test can undermine long-term knowledge acquisition.

Assessing species’ habitat associations from occurrence records, standardised monitoring data and expert opinion: a test with British butterflies

Accurate knowledge of species’ habitat associations is important for conservation planning and policy. Assessing habitat associations is a vital precursor to selecting appropriate indicator species for prioritising sites for conservation or assessing trends in habitat quality. However, much existing knowledge is based on qualitative expert opinion or local scale studies, and may not remain accurate across different spatial scales or geographic locations. Data from biological recording schemes have the potential to provide objective measures of habitat association, with the ability to account for spatial variation. We used data on 50 British butterfly species as a test case to investigate the correspondence of data-derived measures of habitat association with expert opinion, from two different butterfly recording schemes. One scheme collected large quantities of occurrence data (c. 3 million records) and the other, lower quantities of standardised monitoring data (c. 1400 sites). We used general linear mixed effects models to derive scores of association with broad-leaf woodland for both datasets and compared them with scores canvassed from experts. Scores derived from occurrence and abundance data both showed strongly positive correlations with expert opinion. However, only for occurrence data did these fell within the range of correlations between experts. Data-derived scores showed regional spatial variation in the strength of butterfly associations with broad-leaf woodland, with a significant latitudinal trend in 26% of species. Sub-sampling of the data suggested a mean sample size of 5000 occurrence records per species to gain an accurate estimation of habitat association, although habitat specialists are likely to be readily detected using several hundred records. Occurrence data from recording schemes can thus provide easily obtained, objective, quantitative measures of habitat association.