Both overt and covert retrieval practice outperform restudy when practice and test match (the testing effect)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0–i2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Overt retrieval produced higher delayed recall than restudy for definitions (gav = 0.81 in Experiment 1; g = 0.63–0.91 across experiments). → Michelle L. Rivers 2025 q3 i0 Covert retrieval also beat restudy for definitions, with small effects (gav = 0.31 in Experiment 1; g = 0.16–0.54 across experiments). → Michelle L. Rivers 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Michelle L. Rivers 2025¶

Michelle L. Rivers, Paige E. Northern, Sarah K. Tauber. (2025). Does Retrieval Demand Moderate the Effectiveness of Covert Retrieval Practice? Comparing Covert and Overt Retrieval Practice for Learning Key Terms and Definitions. Educational Psychology Review (2025) 37:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10040-4

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Experiment 1 showed "a standard testing effect" for definitions: overt retrieval (M = 0.50) exceeded restudy (M = 0.35), printed effect size gav = 0.81. The general discussion reports testing-effect sizes of g = 0.63–0.91 for overt versus restudy across experiments.

"For those who practiced definitions, we observed a standard testing effect, with recall being higher following overt retrieval (M = 0.50, SE = 0.03) compared to restudy (M = 0.35, SE = 0.02), t(51) = 6.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.19], gav = 0.81."

Michelle L. Rivers 2025 (2)¶

Michelle L. Rivers, Paige E. Northern, Sarah K. Tauber. (2025). Does Retrieval Demand Moderate the Effectiveness of Covert Retrieval Practice? Comparing Covert and Overt Retrieval Practice for Learning Key Terms and Definitions. Educational Psychology Review (2025) 37:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10040-4

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

In Experiment 1, covert retrieval of definitions also beat restudy with printed effect size gav = 0.31; across experiments the covert-versus-restudy testing effect ranged from g = 0.16–0.54 when practice and test matched.

"Further, recall was higher following covert retrieval compared to restudy, t(51) = 2.52, p = 0.015, 95% CI [0.01, 0.10], gav = 0.31."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Overt retrieval practice produces higher delayed recall of definitions than covert retrieval practice for learners studying declarative concepts — related
• Overt retrieval also outperforms covert retrieval for key terms, but with a smaller advantage than for definitions — related
• Repeated test-restudy trials produced higher final cued recall than study-only or single test-restudy controls across both experiments — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Overt retrieval practice enhances interim recall of new List-5 material compared to restudy, and does not differ from JOLs with word stems — related
• In Experiment 1, cue-only JOLs produced significantly better Phase B memory and transfer than restudy, while overt retrieval's memory advantage over restudy was only marginal — related
• Covert retrieval is the most time-efficient practice strategy, yielding the largest gains per minute of practice for both terms and definitions — related
• The overt-retrieval advantage does not significantly differ by definition complexity (number of idea units), contrary to a retrieval-dynamics prediction — related