Overall posttest performance does not differ between targeted and holistic retrieval conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? On overall performance, no task-specific differences were found between conditions on either posttest format, with Bayesian evidence favoring the null. → Tino Endres 2020

Evidence¶

Tino Endres 2020¶

Tino Endres, Lena Kranzdorf, Vivien Schneider, Alexander Renkl. (2020). It matters how to recall – task differences in retrieval practice. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09526-1

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Analysis of overall delayed posttest performance in the 54-participant within-subject study found no condition difference on either posttest format; Bayesian repeated measures ANOVAs (BF01 = 4.091 and 3.364) provided "substantial evidence favoring the null hypothesis". Equivalence was not directly tested beyond the Bayes factors.

"observed no differences between targeted retrieval and holistic retrieval conditions on overall performance (short-answer posttest: F [1, 54] = 0.458, p = 0.502; free-recall posttest: F [1, 54] = 0.892, p = 0.349)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Targeted retrieval via specific short-answer tasks improves retention of directly targeted information more than holistic retrieval via free-recall tasks — related
• Holistic retrieval via free-recall improves retention of non-targeted information, but only on the free-recall posttest — related
• Targeted retrieval via short-answer tasks improves metacognitive calibration more than holistic retrieval via free-recall — related
• Holistic retrieval via free-recall raises self-efficacy, fully mediated by performance during retrieval practice — related
• Holistic retrieval increases situational interest, with better recall performance predicting greater interest, contrary to the knowledge-deprivation hypothesis — related