Literature DB >> 23815513

Covert retrieval practice benefits retention as much as overt retrieval practice.

Megan A Smith1, Henry L Roediger, Jeffrey D Karpicke.   

Abstract

Many experiments provide evidence that practicing retrieval benefits retention relative to conditions of no retrieval practice. Nearly all prior research has employed retrieval practice requiring overt responses, but a few experiments have shown that covert retrieval also produces retention advantages relative to control conditions. However, direct comparisons between overt and covert retrieval are scarce: Does covert retrieval-thinking of but not producing responses-on a first test produce the same benefit as overt retrieval on a criterial test given later? We report 4 experiments that address this issue by comparing retention on a second test following overt or covert retrieval on a first test. In Experiment 1 we used a procedure designed to ensure that subjects would retrieve on covert as well as overt test trials and found equivalent testing effects in the 2 cases. In Experiment 2 we replicated these effects using a procedure that more closely mirrored natural retrieval processes. In Experiment 3 we showed that overt and covert retrieval produced equivalent testing effects after a 2-day delay. Finally, in Experiment 4 we showed that covert retrieval benefits retention more than restudying. We conclude that covert retrieval practice is as effective as overt retrieval practice, a conclusion that contravenes hypotheses in the literature proposing that overt responding is better. This outcome has an important educational implication: Students can learn as much from covert self-testing as they would from overt responding. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23815513     DOI: 10.1037/a0033569

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  18 in total

1.  Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect?

Authors:  Adam L Putnam; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-01

2.  Unannounced memory tests are not necessarily unexpected by participants: test expectation and its consequences in the repeated test paradigm.

Authors:  Aileen Oeberst; Isabel Lindner
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2015-06-19

Review 3.  A dual memory theory of the testing effect.

Authors:  Timothy C Rickard; Steven C Pan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

4.  Retrieval practice: the lack of transfer to deductive inferences.

Authors:  Randy Tran; Doug Rohrer; Harold Pashler
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-02

5.  Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format.

Authors:  Magdalena Abel; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-01

6.  Adjective Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder: A Retrieval-Based Approach.

Authors:  Laurence B Leonard; Patricia Deevy; Jeffrey D Karpicke; Sharon Christ; Christine Weber; Justin B Kueser; Eileen Haebig
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Retrieval-induced versus context-induced forgetting: Does retrieval-induced forgetting depend on context shifts?

Authors:  Julia S Soares; Cody W Polack; Ralph R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  The specificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval.

Authors:  Tilo Strobach; Torsten Schubert; Harold Pashler; Timothy Rickard
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-05

9.  Boosting long-term memory via wakeful rest: intentional rehearsal is not necessary, consolidation is sufficient.

Authors:  Michaela Dewar; Jessica Alber; Nelson Cowan; Sergio Della Sala
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?

Authors:  Richard J Hift
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.