Retrieval practice effects on mediator-cued final tests have been positive, but Coppens et al. (2016) concluded the true effect may be only about 0.10 to 0.20¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2–r3 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The chapter reports, citing Pyc and Rawson (2010), a retrieval practice effect when mediators were used as final-test cues. → Karpicke 2017 q2 i0 The chapter reports that Coppens et al. (2016) concluded the mediator-cued effect may be smaller than originally reported, with a true effect size perhaps in the 0.10 to 0.20 range. → Karpicke 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Karpicke 2017¶

Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-Based Learning: A Decade of Progress. Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, 2nd edition, Volume 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9

q2 · i? · review · r3

The chapter reports Pyc and Rawson (2010), with word pair materials: "there was a retrieval practice effect when mediators were used as cues on the final test". No effect size is printed.

"Pyc and Rawson (2010) showed that there was a retrieval practice effect when mediators were used as cues on the final test"

Karpicke 2017 (2)¶

Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-Based Learning: A Decade of Progress. Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, 2nd edition, Volume 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9

q2 · i0 · review · r2

The chapter reports Coppens et al. (2016) as a corrective: the effect "may be smaller than what original reports concluded (the true effect size may be in the 0.10 – 0.20 range)".

"Coppens et al. (2016) , however, concluded that this effect may be smaller than what original reports concluded (the true effect size may be in the 0.10 – 0.20 range)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Existing theoretical accounts attributing the testing effect to enhanced semantic elaboration receive limited support — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Retrieval Practice Improves Transfer — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Retrieval practice benefits have been observed in children, healthy older adults, and memory-impaired patient groups, not only college students — related
• The benefits of retrieval practice do not depend on an exact match between initial retrieval practice conditions and the final test format — related
• Initial retrieval conditions that provide less cue support, such as free recall rather than recognition or fewer letter cues, tend to produce better retention despite lower initial success — related
• 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
• Taking initial multiple-choice tests without feedback can lead students to later produce the incorrect lure answers they selected, even when an overall retrieval practice benefit occurs — related
• Retrieval Fails Without Encoding — related
• Providing feedback after initial multiple-choice tests cut lure intrusions on final short-answer tests roughly in half, with immediate and delayed feedback equally effective — related
• Retrieval practice produces reliable positive effects at short delays, although some forgetting must set in so that the final test is not at ceiling — a broader claim this one bears on
• Transfer of test-enhanced learning is greatest across test formats, to application and inference questions, to medical diagnosis problems, and to mediator and related word cues — related
• Cued-recall testing can impair later memory for competitive, related but non-practiced information (retrieval-induced forgetting) — related
• Practicing retrieval of some portions of an educational text can enhance retention of related nontested portions (retrieval-induced facilitation), but not when relational encoding is disrupted — related