Where does retrieval practice collide?

In memory research the same phenomenon is named the testing effect: the act of retrieving information from memory produces more durable long-term retention than spending the equivalent time re-reading it. Roediger and Karpicke's 2006 Test-enhanced learning showed that repeated testing beat repeated study on delayed tests, even though it felt less effective to learners in the moment. The referent here is identical to what educators call retrieval practice, measured by delayed recall after a retrieval versus a restudy phase, only the name differs between the basic-science and applied literatures.[1]

Unit

The gain in later retention from retrieving versus restudying material

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Measured by comparing delayed-test performance after a retrieval (testing) phase against a matched restudy phase

In classroom and educational research the same effect travels under the name retrieval practice (or practice testing): having students repeatedly bring material to mind produces deeper, more transferable learning than rereading or elaborative study strategies. Karpicke and Blunt's 2011 Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping found a retrieval advantage even against a demanding study technique. It is the very same construct the memory literature calls the testing effect, framed as a study strategy and measured by performance on later meaningful-learning and inference tests, which is why the two names are a jangle rather than two phenomena.[2]

Unit

The learning advantage of retrieval-based study over restudy strategies

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Assessed by later tests of recall, comprehension, and inference after retrieval-based versus restudy learning activities