Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retrieval Practice Benefits Deductive Inference

  • Intervention Study
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Retrieval practice has been shown to benefit learning. However, the benefit has sometimes been attenuated with more complex materials that require integrating multiple units of information. Critically, Tran et al. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 135–140 (2015) found that retrieval practice improves sentence memory but not the drawing of inferences from the same sentences. In three experiments, we investigated whether this lack of benefit of retrieval practice for inferential ability was due to the presentation format of the material. Participants studied four sets of seven to nine related sentences by practicing retrieval for two sets and rereading the other two sets. A final test was given 2 days later. When sentences were presented one at a time during study/practice as in Tran et al., we found no effect of retrieval practice on a test requiring inferential reasoning. When sentences in a set were presented simultaneously during study/practice, retrieval practice in the form of fill-in-the-blank testing (experiments 1 and 2) and free recall (experiment 3) aided later deductive inference more than rereading. Our findings suggest that retrieval practice can improve deductive inference, but in order to optimize its utility, the format in which the material is presented during practice must not hinder relational processing of the individual sentences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In a separate experiment, we conducted a direct replication of Tran et al. (experiment 3) and confirmed that retrieval practice (M = .42, SD = .19) did not confer higher inference performance on the final test than restudy (M = .41, SD = .18) t(44) < 1.

  2. This experiment was suggested by an anonymous reviewer, and in the interest of transparency, we pre-registered the experiment at the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io), under study # 8ay9f.

References

  • Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876. doi:10.1002/acp.1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940–945. doi:10.1037/a0029199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1118–1133. doi:10.1037/a0019902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 1563. doi:10.1037/a0017021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(6), 1547–1552. doi:10.1037/a0024140.

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 279–283. doi:10.1177/0963721412452728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34, 268–276. doi:10.3758/BF03193405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Vul, E. (2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 826–830. doi:10.3758/BF03194004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633–642. doi:10.3758/BF03202713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J. C. K. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 153–170. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J. C. K., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2013). Impairing existing declarative memory in humans by disrupting reconsolidation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 9309–9313. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218472110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: a JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1–12. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32, 945–955. doi:10.3758/BF03196872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: a componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and Aging, 15, 462–474. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., & Coté, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: the importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 566–581. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90052-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G * power 3:a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B., & Roediger, H. L. (2011). Enhancing retention through reconsolidation. Psychological Science, 22, 781–786. doi:10.1177/0956797611407932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Tabbers, H. K. (2014). The effect of retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 135–142. doi:10.1002/acp.2956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234. doi:10.3102/0013189X11413260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2011). Testing the limits of testing effects using completion tests. Memory, 19, 290–304. doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.560121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S. R., Wiley, J., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). The importance of constructive comprehension processes in learning from tests. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 151–164. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90138-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S. H. K. (2010). Enhancing visuospatial learning: the benefit of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1009–1017. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528–558. doi:10.1080/09541440601056620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 317–326. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. doi:10.1126/science.1199327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966–968. doi:10.1126/science.1152408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: an episodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 237–284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00007-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016). How retrieval attempts affect learning: a review and synthesis. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 183–215). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/bs.plm. 2016.03.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 291–304. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9296-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory & Cognition 43(1) 85–98. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0453-7.

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: a contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 113–145. doi:10.1007/BF01326639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing vs. transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nader, K., & Einarsson, E. Ö. (2010). Memory reconsolidation: an update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 27–41. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05443.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A. (2015). The status of the testing effect for complex materials: still a winner. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 327–331. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9308-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Carpenter, S. K. (2015). Does the benefit of testing depend on lag, and if so, why? Evaluating the elaborative retrieval hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 43, 619–633. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0477-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, & Karpicke. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Taking memory test improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9280.2006.01693.x

  • Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 233–239. doi:10.1037/a0017678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432–1463. doi:10.1037/a0037559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sara, S. J. (2000). Retrieval and reconsolidation: toward a neurobiology of remembering. Learning & Memory, 7, 73–84. doi:10.1101/lm.7.2.73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, R., Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2015). Retrieval practice: the lack of transfer to deductive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 135–140. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0646-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 429–442. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0274-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Kester, L. (2012). A test of the testing effect: acquiring problem-solving skills from worked examples. Cognitive Science, 36, 1532–1541. doi:10.1111/cogs.12002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: the testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 247–264. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaromb, F. M., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory & Cognition, 38, 995–1008. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Walter and Constance Burke Research Initiation Award. The authors acknowledge Spencer Chu for assistance with programming the experiments and Randy Tran for providing helpful information regarding the experimental materials. The authors also thank Wafaa Ahmed, Alexandra Gerber, Brendan Schuetze, and Xinyun Tang for assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Luke G. Eglington

  2. Department of Education, Dartmouth College, 210 Raven House, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Sean H. K. Kang

Authors
  1. Luke G. Eglington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sean H. K. Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean H. K. Kang.

Appendix

Appendix

ᅟ

Table 1 Mean intermediate test performance during the learning session (SE)
Full size table

ᅟ

Table 2 Mean number of cycles completed during the learning session (SE)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eglington, L.G., Kang, S.H.K. Retrieval Practice Benefits Deductive Inference. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 215–228 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9386-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9386-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation