On the final cumulative test, JOLs with word stems and retrieval practice improve List-5 recall over restudy, while restudy shows a List-1 advantage¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2–r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The effect of practice type on final cumulative recall was modulated by list (Practice Type × List interaction, F(12, 628) = 4.61, p < .001, ω²p = 0.02). → Veit Kubik 2022 q3 i2 On final cumulative recall, JOLs with word stems (d = 0.45) and retrieval practice (d = 0.57) beat restudy for List 5, whereas restudy beat both for List 1 (d = 0.56 and d = 0.76). → Veit Kubik 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Veit Kubik 2022¶

Veit Kubik, Kenneth Koslowski, Torsten Schubert, Alp Aslan. (2022). Metacognitive judgments can potentiate new learning: The role of covert retrieval. Metacognition and Learning (2022) 17:1057–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09307-w

q3 · i? · causal · r3

A 4 (practice type) × 5 (list) ANOVA on final cumulative recall in the N = 161 experiment found a significant "Practice Type × List interaction effect, F(12, 628) = 4.61, p < .001"; no main effect of practice type. No standardized effect size is printed for the interaction, so impact is null.

"Critically, we observed a significant Practice Type × List interaction effect, F(12, 628) = 4.61, p < .001, ̂ω2p = 0.02, indicating the effect of practice type was modulated in magnitude as a function of list."

Veit Kubik 2022 (2)¶

Veit Kubik, Kenneth Koslowski, Torsten Schubert, Alp Aslan. (2022). Metacognitive judgments can potentiate new learning: The role of covert retrieval. Metacognition and Learning (2022) 17:1057–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09307-w

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Planned contrasts on final cumulative recall: word-stem JOLs and retrieval practice "trumped restudy" for List 5; for List 1, restudy showed a significant advantage over word-stem JOLs, t(78) = 2.46, p = .016, d = 0.56, and retrieval practice, t(78) = 3.34, p = .001, d = 0.76. JOLs with complete words did not differ from restudy for List 5 (d = 0.14, ns).

"making JOLs with word stems, t(78) = 2.0, p = .025, d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.07, ∞] (one-tailed), and retrieval practice, t(78) = 2.52, p = .007, d = 0.57, 95% CI [0.19, ∞] (one-tailed), trumped restudy in final cumulative test recall performance of List 5"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Overt retrieval practice enhances interim recall of new List-5 material compared to restudy, and does not differ from JOLs with word stems — related
• JOLs with word stems and retrieval practice reduce prior-list intrusions on the List-5 test, whereas JOLs with complete words do not — related
• Making JOLs with word stems enhances interim recall of new List-5 material compared to restudy — related
• Retrieval practice enhances final-test recollection of contextual details and speeds final retrieval, as shown by list discrimination, response time, and cumulative recall measures — a broader claim this one bears on
• Making JOLs with complete words did not significantly enhance interim recall of new List-5 material compared to restudy — related
• JOL magnitudes decline across successive lists in both JOL groups, reflecting learners' belief that recall decreases with continued new learning — related
• Inducing learners to recollect the prior study episode during retrieval practice enhances retention even when reexposure and initial success are held constant — a broader claim this one bears on
• Retrieval practice enhances performance on final inference and transfer questions relative to restudying, although a single-word fill-in-the-blank task did not — related