Retrieval practice disrupted within-list order reconstruction of eight-item word lists, just as generation did¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The chapter reports, citing Karpicke and Zaromb (2010, Experiment 3), that retrieval practice disrupted final order reconstruction performance, as generation did. → Karpicke 2017

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 Karpicke and Zaromb (2010, Experiment 3), where subjects sorted words into their original order: "retrieval practice also disrupted order reconstruction performance, just as generation did".

"Karpicke and Zaromb found that retrieval practice also disrupted order reconstruction performance, just as generation did."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Whether initial retrieval practice enhances semantic organization in final free recall is unclear, with results that may depend on how retrieval practice is implemented — related
• Inducing learners to recollect the prior study episode during retrieval practice enhances retention even when reexposure and initial success are held constant — 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 — related
• Off-line self-reports of strategy use may not correspond to actual learner behavior due to memory-reconstruction problems — related