Review: Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning

The study “Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mappingexamined whether using the retrieval practice studying technique improved student learning of a science passage more than study-once, repeated-study or concept mapping. The study compared outcomes for 80 undergraduates at Purdue University asked to read a 276-word passage and then randomly assigned to use one of the four studying techniques.

Study-once group: Students did nothing beyond the initial five-minute reading period.

Repeated-study group: Students read the same text during three additional five-minute sessions, with one-minute breaks between sessions.

Concept-mapping group: Students were instructed to spend 25 minutes after the initial reading period mapping out the text’s main concepts on a sheet of paper.

Retrieval-practice group: Students were instructed to spend 10 minutes after the initial reading period listing any information they remembered from the text in a response box on a computer screen. The students then reread the text for another five minutes and were again asked to list the information they remembered.

The study found that students using the retrieval practice technique scored significantly higher than students using the study-once, repeated-study, or concept mapping technique. The average percent of correct test questions for each group was 67% for retrieval practice, 27% for study once, 49% for repeated study, and 45% for concept mapping.

A What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) quick review of this research on retrieval practice studying techniques concluded that:

The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards

Strengths: The study was a well-implemented randomized controlled trial.

Cautions: Students in the retrieval-practice and concept-mapping groups received equal amounts of study time, but both groups had more time to learn the text than students in the study-once and repeated-study groups. This unequal amount of study time, rather than the study approach, could have caused the differences in outcomes.