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.
4 references
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapter 8
retrieval practicetesting effectsspaced retrievalpretestingprequestioningtest-potentiated learningmetacognitive regulationauthentic educational settingsJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Pan, Dunlosky, Xu, and Ouwehand introduce a special issue on the next phase of test-enhanced learning research.
Key ideas
They note that retrieval practice and related testing effects are well established, then organize emerging questions across practice formats and research themes. The issue covers retrieval practice, spaced retrieval, prequestioning and pretesting, and test-potentiated new learning, alongside comparisons and combinations with other learning strategies. It also highlights metacognition and self-regulation, applications in authentic educational settings, and communication of findings to teachers and learners. The commentary maps the included reviews, empirical studies, and reflections onto these themes and identifies unresolved questions for future investigation.
Why it matters
Its practical message is that research should move beyond demonstrating that testing can improve learning toward understanding boundary conditions, implementation, learner regulation, and effective translation into educational practice.
-
- Vol 1 RE: Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, App A, App B
- Vol 2 RE: App D
- Vol 2 TE: App B
- Vol 3 RE: Chapter 4
- Vol 3 TE: App C
- Vol 4 RE: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 9, 17, 25, App A, App B, App C
- Vol 4 TE: App C
- Vol 5 RE: Chapters 7, 13, App A, App B
- Vol 5 TE: App C
- Vol 7 PE: App D
retrieval practicelong-term retentionspaced practiceretrieval feedbacktest-enhanced learningtransfer of learninglow-stakes assessmentJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Roediger and Butler review evidence that retrieving information is a learning event rather than merely a way to measure prior study. Compared with equivalent restudy, successful retrieval generally improves long-term retention, especially when recall is effortful, repeated, and distributed over time.
Key ideas
Very easy, massed retrieval may add little; expanding and equal-interval schedules can differ with the final retention interval. Correct-answer feedback strengthens the effect by repairing errors and preserving correct responses, and is particularly important after multiple-choice questions that expose learners to plausible misinformation. Benefits can extend beyond a practised cue to transfer and inference, although the degree depends on task design. Several theoretical accounts are considered, including elaboration of retrieval routes and effortful reconstruction, but no single mechanism fully explains the evidence.
Why it matters
For educators, retrieval practice should be low stakes, spaced, and aligned with meaningful knowledge, with prompt feedback and opportunities to retrieve in varied forms. Testing can support learning, but high-stakes testing, uncorrected error, and narrow drill are not equivalent to the research-based practice reviewed.
-
- 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.
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapter 8
retrieval practicegenerative learningfollow-up learning tasksknowledge constructionlearning task sequencingfeedback designprior knowledgemetacognitive mechanismsJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Roelle and colleagues examine the underdeveloped relationship between retrieval-practice research and generative-learning research.
Key ideas
Retrieval is typically used to consolidate accessible memory representations, whereas activities such as explaining, mapping, drawing, or generating examples aim to construct or reorganize understanding. Because these functions may complement one another, the authors use follow-up learning tasks to analyze when retrieval can prepare learners for later generative activity and when generative activity can enrich subsequent retrieval. They distinguish direct effects on practiced material from indirect effects on new learning, discuss cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms, and identify design variables such as sequencing, feedback, task demands, and prior knowledge.
Why it matters
The paper calls for experiments that explicitly integrate the two research traditions instead of comparing isolated techniques, with the goal of designing combinations whose processes and boundary conditions are theoretically understood.
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