Retrieval practice instructions led students to recall items to a criterion of about three correct retrievals before dropping them¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 The instructed group recalled translations approximately three times before dropping them, whereas the control group dropped items after about one correct retrieval. → Ariel 2018 q3 i2 Instructions increased the proportion of items recalled three or more times and decreased items never recalled or recalled only once. → Ariel 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Ariel 2018¶

Ariel, R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Improving Self-Regulated Learning With a Retrieval Practice Intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000133

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Experiment 1 behavioral analysis of self-regulated choices. Group means differed, t(58) = 3.52, p < .01, d = 0.92; the instructed group's mean did not differ from 3, t(29) = 0.55, p = .58, while the control group's did, "t(29) = 8.09, p < .001, d = 1.48".

"The retrieval practice instruction group recalled translations approximately three times before dropping them from the learning task, whereas the control group dropped translations on average after one correct retrieval practice trial."

Ariel 2018 (2)¶

Ariel, R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Improving Self-Regulated Learning With a Retrieval Practice Intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000133

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Experiment 1 analysis of the proportion of items reaching criteria of 0, 1, 2, or 3+ correct retrievals before being dropped. Instructions shifted the distribution toward "recalled 3 or more times during practice"; groups did not differ for items recalled twice (d = 0.06).

"the minimal retrieval practice instructions used in our intervention decreased the number of items that were never recalled, t(58) = 2.07, p < .05, d = 0.52 [0.02, 1.05], or recalled only once, t(58) = 2.15, p < .05, d = 0.56 [0.04, 1.07], while increasing the number of items that were recalled 3 or more times during practice, t(58) = 3.49, p < .01, d = 0.91 [0.37, 1.43]"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Learners underuse effective learning strategies such as spacing and retrieval practice — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Instructed students allocated more total time to learning, and time was correlated with successful retrieval attempts — related
• Students given retrieval practice instructions spontaneously used a repeated retrieval strategy on new materials one week later without further instructions — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Effects of instructions on some measures were inconsistent across experiments, and instructed students did not recall all items to criterion — related
• Repeated successful retrieval during learning predicted final recall in both experiments — related
• Retrieval practice instructions improved final recall of translations in Experiment 1 — related
• Socratic participants required nearly twice as many attempts to reach the 80% mastery threshold as Full participants (d = -2.01), and 58% of the exercises of Socratic participants who abandoned the dialogue mid-way never reached the threshold — related
• Self-regulated multiple-choice students scored lower on final tests than experimenter-controlled groups but spent less time practicing, making their one-correct criterion comparatively time-efficient. — related
• Mental effort did not explain the testing effect: retrieval practice effort did not predict delayed test scores — related