A review reports that retrieval practice effects grow more robust as initial retrieval success rises, especially above 75%, and separately that giving more retrieval cues yields smaller effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2–r3 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The chapter reports that in Rowland's (2014) meta-analysis retrieval practice effects become more robust as initial retrieval success increases, especially when it is greater than 75%. → Karpicke 2017 q2 i? The chapter reports that more initial retrieval cues lead to smaller retrieval practice effects and that massed retrieval immediately after study produces very little learning relative to spaced retrieval. → 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

q3 · i? · review · r3

The chapter reports this moderator from Rowland's (2014) meta-analysis: "retrieval practice effects become more robust as initial retrieval success increases", especially above 75%. No effect sizes are printed for it.

"Based on Rowland’s (2014) meta-analysis, retrieval practice effects become more robust as initial retrieval success increases, especially when initial retrieval is greater than 75%."

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 · i? · review · r2

The chapter cites Carpenter and DeLosh (2006) and Karpicke and Roediger (2007a) as evidence that effort matters: "providing more initial retrieval cues leads to smaller retrieval practice effects".

"For example, providing more initial retrieval cues leads to smaller retrieval practice effects ( Carpenter and DeLosh, 2006 ), and massed retrieval immediately after study produces very little learning relative to spaced retrieval ( Karpicke and Roediger, 2007a )."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Spaced Practice Improves Retention — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Retrieval Failure Reduces Benefit
• 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 — reports the opposite
• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — 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 — related
• The meta-analysis supports retrieval effort as a contributor to the testing effect — related
• Spaced retrieval practice produces better final retention than massed retrieval even though spacing lowers initial retrieval success, and more absolute spacing enhances long-term retention — related