Overt retrieval practice produces higher delayed recall of definitions than covert retrieval practice for learners studying declarative concepts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2–r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In Experiment 1, criterion-test recall of definitions was higher after overt retrieval than after covert retrieval (gav = 0.47). → Michelle L. Rivers 2025 q3 i2 In Experiment 2, the overt advantage for definitions replicated (gav = 0.44). → Michelle L. Rivers 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Michelle L. Rivers 2025¶

Michelle L. Rivers, Paige E. Northern, Sarah K. Tauber. (2025). Does Retrieval Demand Moderate the Effectiveness of Covert Retrieval Practice? Comparing Covert and Overt Retrieval Practice for Learning Key Terms and Definitions. Educational Psychology Review (2025) 37:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10040-4

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

In Experiment 1 (98 undergraduates, 3 practice modalities within-participants, criterion test two days later), for participants who practiced definitions, recall of definitions was higher after overt retrieval (M = 0.50) than covert retrieval (M = 0.41), with printed effect size gav = 0.47. In that group overt also beat restudy, and covert beat restudy (gav = 0.31); for participants who practiced terms, covert retrieval did not differ significantly from restudy (p = 0.336).

"Recall was also higher following overt retrieval compared to covert retrieval (M = 0.41, SE = 0.03), t(51) = 3.78, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.04, 0.14], g av = 0.47."

Michelle L. Rivers 2025 (2)¶

Michelle L. Rivers, Paige E. Northern, Sarah K. Tauber. (2025). Does Retrieval Demand Moderate the Effectiveness of Covert Retrieval Practice? Comparing Covert and Overt Retrieval Practice for Learning Key Terms and Definitions. Educational Psychology Review (2025) 37:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10040-4

q3 · i2 · causal · r3

In the high-powered Experiment 2 (382 undergraduates), for participants who practiced and were tested on definitions, overt retrieval (M = 0.53) beat covert retrieval (M = 0.43) with printed effect size gav = 0.44; covert also beat restudy (gav = 0.16).

"Recall was also higher following overt retrieval compared to covert retrieval (M = 0.43, SE = 0.02), t(100) = 5.66, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.14], g av = 0.44."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Both overt and covert retrieval practice outperform restudy when practice and test match (the testing effect) — related
• Covert retrieval is the most time-efficient practice strategy, yielding the largest gains per minute of practice for both terms and definitions — related
• The overt-retrieval advantage does not significantly differ by definition complexity (number of idea units), contrary to a retrieval-dynamics prediction — related
• Overt retrieval also outperforms covert retrieval for key terms, but with a smaller advantage than for definitions — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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
• 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. — reports the opposite