Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
3 references
-
- Vol 4 RE: Chapters 3, 4, 8, App A, App C
- Vol 4 TE: App C
retrieval-based learningretrieval practiceactive recallspacing effectdelayed retentionmemory reconstructionJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Karpicke argues that retrieval is not merely a neutral way to measure knowledge encoded earlier; retrieving changes memory and is itself a powerful learning event. Every expression of knowledge depends on available cues, and effortful retrieval strengthens future access, supports organisation, and can improve long-term learning and transfer.
Key ideas
Experiments comparing repeated study with retrieval practice show that rereading can produce short-term fluency and confidence while yielding poorer delayed retention. Retrieval can involve free recall, practice questions, explaining from memory, or reconstructing ideas, and should be followed by feedback when errors or omissions need correction. Effective practice is spaced and repeated after some forgetting rather than massed into immediate repetitions. Students often underuse retrieval because they identify learning with putting information in and mistake ease during study for durable mastery. The review cautions that retrieval tasks should align with desired understanding and not become narrow high-stakes testing.
Why it matters
Used as low-stakes learning, active recall makes gaps visible, improves monitoring, and strengthens the ability to use knowledge later. Encoding and elaboration still matter, but durable learning requires opportunities to reconstruct what was learned.
-
- Vol 1 RE: Chapter 7
- Vol 2 RE: App D
- Vol 2 TE: App B
- Vol 3 RE: Chapter 4
- Vol 4 TE: App C
- Vol 5 RE: Chapter 7
retrieval practiceconcept mappingverbatim recallinference performancedelayed learningmetacognitive mismatchJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Karpicke and Blunt compare retrieval practice with elaborative concept mapping using science texts. Students studied material and then either repeatedly retrieved it from memory or constructed concept maps while viewing the text.
Key ideas
On delayed tests one week later, retrieval practice produced substantially better verbatim recall and inference performance, even when the final assessment required creating a concept map. Learners nevertheless predicted that repeated study would be more effective, illustrating a metacognitive mismatch between immediate fluency and durable learning. The experiments do not show that concept maps are inherently ineffective. Their learning value depends on how they are used: constructing a map with the source present is elaborative study, whereas reconstructing relationships from memory can itself become retrieval practice. Active recall requires learners to search for and organise knowledge without external support, revealing gaps and strengthening later access.
Why it matters
The findings concern specific texts, schedules, and assessments, so application should include feedback and spacing. The central result is that meaningful learning is not produced only by elaborative encoding; effortful reconstruction from memory can improve conceptual understanding and transfer more than additional exposure.
-
- Vol 1 RE: Chapters 1, 3
- Vol 1 TE: App A
metacognitive monitoringjudgements of learningretrieval fluencyillusion of competencecue-target accessibilitya posteriori coherenceretrieval practiceJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Koriat and Bjork examine why learners can feel more competent during study than later tests justify. Judgements of learning are often made while both a cue and its target are visible, whereas testing presents the cue alone and requires target retrieval.
Key ideas
Features that make the pair seem strongly related in the presence of the answer can inflate confidence even when the cue is weak at eliciting that answer independently. Across paired-associate experiments, participants’ predictions were influenced by the apparent association from cue to target and failed to discount privileged access to the target during study. This creates an illusion of competence: fluent processing and perceived relatedness are mistaken for retrievability. The authors distinguish a priori cue-to-target accessibility from a posteriori coherence experienced after the answer is shown.
Why it matters
More diagnostic monitoring requires recreating test conditions, for example by delaying judgements, hiding the target, attempting retrieval, and then checking the response. The findings concern specific laboratory tasks but explain a broad study error: rereading with answers present can feel convincing while providing poor evidence that knowledge can be produced later without support.
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway