Response format (overt vs. covert retrieval) did not affect final cued recall in spaced retrieval practice, and list structure (blocked vs. random; proportion of overt trials) did not moderate the effect.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2–r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Overtly and covertly retrieved pairs did not differ significantly in final cued-recall accuracy. → Higham 2023 q3 i? Neither blocked versus random sequencing nor the proportion of overt trials moderated the overt–covert difference (both interactions non-significant). → Higham 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Higham 2023¶

Higham, P. A., Fastrich, G. M., Potts, R., Murayama, K., Pickering, J. S., & Hadwin, J. A. (2023). Spaced Retrieval Practice: Can Restudying Trump Retrieval? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09809-2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Planned Holm-corrected paired t-test in Experiment 1 (n = 259) contrasting overt and covert retrieval conditions: "pairs overtly retrieved (M = 0.65, SD = 0.26)" versus covert pairs (M = 0.63, SD = 0.30) showed no significant difference. No effect size was printed for this contrast, so the detected difference is unquantified.

"The first t-test showed that pairs overtly retrieved (M = 0.65, SD = 0.26) during the practice sessions were not significantly better recalled at final test compared to pairs that were covertly retrieved (M = 0.63, SD = 0.30)"

Higham 2023 (2)¶

Higham, P. A., Fastrich, G. M., Potts, R., Murayama, K., Pickering, J. S., & Hadwin, J. A. (2023). Spaced Retrieval Practice: Can Restudying Trump Retrieval? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09809-2

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Preregistered 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA (random 25% vs. random 75% groups) on final accuracy: "The interaction was also not significant, F(1, 174) = 2.74, p = 0.10". The blocked-versus-random interaction (Hypothesis 1b) was likewise non-significant (F(1, 257) = 0.30, p = 0.59). No effect size was printed for these null interactions.

"The interaction was also not significant, F(1, 174) = 2.74, p = 0.10, η2G < 0.01, BF10 = 0.61. Because we did not find the predicted group by condition interaction, we did not conduct any follow up t-tests."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 1, overall final-test recall was lower in the blocked 50% group than in the random 25% group (d = 0.40), an exploratory between-groups difference. — related
• In spaced practice with post-feedback memory ratings, restudied Swahili–English pairs were recalled better than covertly or overtly retrieved pairs on a delayed final cued-recall test. — related
• Transfer across response formats is incomplete: practicing terms benefited definition recall, but practicing definitions showed no overt-over-covert advantage on a term test — related
• Overt retrieval practice produces higher delayed recall of definitions than covert retrieval practice for learners studying declarative concepts — reports the opposite
• Overt retrieval also outperforms covert retrieval for key terms, but with a smaller advantage than for definitions — reports the opposite