Retrieval-Based Learning: Positive Effects of Retrieval Practice in Elementary School Children

Jeffrey D Karpicke, Janell R Blunt, Megan A Smith, Jeffrey D Karpicke, Janell R Blunt, Megan A Smith

Abstract

A wealth of research has demonstrated that practicing retrieval is a powerful way to enhance learning. However, nearly all prior research has examined retrieval practice with college students. Little is known about retrieval practice in children, and even less is known about possible individual differences in retrieval practice. In three experiments, 88 children (mean age 10 years) studied a list of words and either restudied the items or practiced retrieving them. They then took a final free recall test (Experiments 1 and 2) or recognition test (Experiment 3). In all experiments, children showed robust retrieval practice effects. Although a range of individual differences in reading comprehension and processing speed were observed among these children, the benefits of retrieval practice were independent of these factors. The results contribute to the growing body of research supporting the mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice and provide preliminary evidence that practicing retrieval may be an effective learning strategy for children with varying levels of reading comprehension and processing speed.

Keywords: children; individual differences; learning; memory; retrieval practice.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Proportion of target words recalled on the final free recall test in Experiment 1 (A) and Experiment 2 (B), and proportion of target words correctly recognized in Experiment 3 (C). Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Note that the scale is different in (C) than it is in (A) and (B). In all three experiments, children recalled and recognized more words on the final test when they practiced retrieving the words relative to when they repeatedly studied them.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Children’s retrieval practice and repeated study performance based on their reading comprehension and speed of processing. For illustrative purposes, children were divided into quartiles, 1 representing the lowest 25% of scorers, and 4 representing the highest 25% of scorers. Reading comprehension (A–C) was measured by the Maze test, and speed of processing (D–F) was measured by the Cross-Out task from the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Across the three experiments, children consistently benefitted from retrieval practice over repeated study and this effect was approximately the same regardless of reading comprehension and speed of processing.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Overall frequency distribution of Maze reading comprehension scores (A; skewness = 0.42; kurtosis = 0.93) and Cross-Out processing speed scores (B; skewness = 0.22, kurtosis = 0.32) combined for children from all experiments.

References

    1. Balota D. A., Yap M. J., Hutchison K. A., Cortese M. J., Kessler B., Loftis B., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behav. Res. Methods 39 445–459. 10.3758/BF03193014
    1. Bouwmeester S., Verkoeijen P. P. (2011). Why do some children benefit more from testing than others? Gist trace processing to explain the testing effect. J. Mem. Lang. 65 32–41. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.005
    1. Carpenter S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37 1547–1552. 10.1037/a0024140
    1. Carpenter S. K., DeLosh E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name-learning. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 19 619–636. 10.1002/acp.1101
    1. Dunlosky J., Rawson K. A., Marsh E. J., Nathan M. J., Willingham D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 14 4–58. 10.1177/1529100612453266
    1. Fritz C. O., Morris P. E., Nolan D., Singleton J. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice: an effective aid to preschool children’s learning. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 60 991–1004. 10.1080/17470210600823595
    1. Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 58 45–58. 10.1080/13803395.2015.1072498
    1. Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D. (2011). Using CBM for Progress Monitoring in Reading. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
    1. Gates A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Arch. Psychol. 6:104.
    1. Gernsbacher M. A., Varner K. R., Faust M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16 430–445.
    1. Goossens N. A. M. C., Camp G., Verkoeijen P. P. J. L., Tabbers H. K. (2014a). The effect of retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28 135–142. 10.1002/acp.2956
    1. Goossens N. A. M. C., Camp G., Verkoeijen P. P. J. L., Tabbers H. K., Zwaan R. A. (2014b). The benefit of retrieval practice over elaborative restudy in primary school vocabulary learning. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3 177–182. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.05.003
    1. Grimaldi P. J., Karpicke J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Mem. Cogn. 40 505–513. 10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0
    1. Guillery-Girard B., Martins S., Deshayes S., Hertz-Pannier L., Chiron C., Jambaque I., et al. (2013). Developmental trajectories of associative memory from childhood to adulthood: a behavioral and neuroimaging study. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 7:126 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00126
    1. Jenkins J. R., Jewell M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: reading aloud and maze. Except. Children 59 421–432.
    1. Kail R., Hall L. K. (1994). Processing speed, naming speed, and reading. Dev. Psychol. 30 949–954. 10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.949
    1. Karpicke J. D., Bauernschmidt A. (2011). Spaced retrieval: absolute spacing enhances learning regardless of relative spacing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37 1250–1257. 10.1037/a0023436
    1. Karpicke J. D., Blunt J. B. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science 331 772–775. 10.1126/science.1199327
    1. Karpicke J. D., Blunt J. B., Smith M. S., Karpicke S. S. (2014a). Retrieval-based learning: the need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3 198–206. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.008
    1. Karpicke J. D., Lehman M., Aue W. R. (2014b). “Retrieval-based learning: an episodic context account,” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 61 ed. Ross B. H. (San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; ), 237–284.
    1. Karpicke J. D., Roediger H. L. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. J. Mem. Lang. 57 151–162. 10.1111/sjop.12093
    1. Karpicke J. D., Roediger H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 319 966–968. 10.1126/science.1152408
    1. Karpicke J. D., Roediger H. L. (2010). Is expanding retrieval a superior method for learning text materials? Mem. Cogn. 38 116–124. 10.3758/MC.38.1.116
    1. Karpicke J. D., Zaromb F. M. (2010). Retrieval mode distinguishes the testing effect from the generation effect. J. Mem. Lang. 62 227–239. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.010
    1. Kornell N., Hays M. J., Bjork R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35 989–998. 10.1037/a0015729
    1. Kucera H., Francis W. N. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
    1. Kuperman V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez H., Brysbaert M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30000 English words. Behav. Res. Methods 44 978–990. 10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
    1. Lehman M., Smith M. A., Karpicke J. D. (2014). Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 40 1787–1794. 10.1037/xlm0000012
    1. Marsh E. J., Fazio L. K., Goswick A. E. (2012). Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory 20 899–906. 10.1080/09658211.2012.708757
    1. McDaniel M. A., Howard D. C., Einstein G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy: effective and portable. Psychol. Sci. 20 516–522. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02325.x
    1. McNamara D. S., Magliano J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 51 297–384. 10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
    1. Poole B. J., Kane M. J. (2009). Working-memory capacity predicts the executive control of visual search among distractors: the influences of sustained and selective attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62 1430–1454. 10.1080/17470210802479329
    1. Posnansky C. J. (1978). Category norms for verbal items in 25 categories for children in Grades 2–6. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. 10 819–832. 10.3758/BF03205407
    1. Pressley M., Harris K. R. (2006). “Cognitive strategies instruction: from basic research to classroom instruction,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd Edn, eds Alexander P. A., Winne P. H. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 265–286.
    1. Pressley M., Hilden K. (2006). “Cognitive strategies,” in Handbook of Child Psychology, Cognition, Perception, and Language, 6th Edn Vol. 2 eds Kuhn D., Siegler R. S., Damon W., Lerner R. M. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 511–556.
    1. Pyc M. A., Rawson K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? J. Mem. Lang. 60 437–447. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
    1. Pyc M. A., Rawson K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science 330 335–335. 10.1126/science.1191465
    1. Roediger H. L., Agarwal P. K., McDaniel M. A., McDermott K. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17 382–395. 10.1037/a0026252
    1. Roediger H. L., Karpicke J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1 181–210. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
    1. Roediger H. L., Karpicke J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol. Sci. 17 249–255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
    1. Roediger H. L., III, Marsh E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple choice testing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31 1155–1159.
    1. Rohrer D., Taylor K., Sholar B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36 233–239. 10.1037/a0017678
    1. Spitzer H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. J. Educ. Psychol. 30 641–656. 10.1037/h0063404
    1. Tilstra J., McMaster K., Van den Broek P., Kendeou P., Rapp D. (2009). Simple but complex: components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. J. Res. Read. 32 383–401. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
    1. Woodcock R. W., Johnson M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe