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.
1 reference
-
- Vol 1 RE: Chapters 1, 5, 7, App A, App B
- Vol 1 TE: App A
- Vol 2 RE: Chapters 3, 8, 10, 11, App A, App C, App D
- Vol 2 TE: App B
- Vol 3 RE: Chapters 4, 6, App A
- Vol 3 TE: App C
- Vol 4 RE: Chapters 1, 3, 4, 8, App A, App C
- Vol 4 TE: App C
- Vol 5 RE: Chapters 1, 3, 5, 7
- Vol 5 TE: App C
- Vol 7 PE: App D
- Vol 7 RE: Chapters 1, 5, 8, 11, App B, App D
retrieval practicetest-enhanced learningdelayed retentionfree-recall testingmetacognitive misjudgmentspaced assessmentfeedback-based correctionJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Roediger and Karpicke report two experiments comparing repeated study with repeated free-recall testing for prose passages. Students either restudied material or attempted retrieval without feedback, then completed a final test after five minutes, two days, or one week.
Key ideas
Repeated study produced an advantage on the immediate test, but prior retrieval produced substantially better retention after the longer delays. Students who restudied were nevertheless more confident that they had learned the material, illustrating that fluent rereading and short-term performance can mislead judgements about durable learning. Because the retrieval tests supplied no corrective feedback, the experiments show that retrieval itself can strengthen memory, not merely provide another exposure to the text. They do not imply that feedback is unnecessary when errors or omissions matter.
Why it matters
For educators and learners, low-stakes recall should be spaced across time and followed by correction, with delayed assessment used to judge learning. The relevant comparison is not how familiar material feels now, but what can be reconstructed later without the source present.
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