top of page

What Is Retrieval-Based Learning? A Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology Podcast Episode.

Writer's picture:  Connor Whiteley Connor Whiteley
What Is Retrieval-Based Learning? A Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology Podcast Episode.

If you’ve ever done cognitive psychology before then you might be aware that people only learn and retain information if it enters the long-term memory. To achieve this and improve their learning, students and adults use a wide range of strategies to help them learn new information. Yet these different strategies are different levels of effective so in this cognitive psychology podcast episode, we’re going to learning about one of the most effective ways of learning new information. By the end of this podcast episode, you’ll understand what retrieval-based learning is, why is it effective and some of neuropsychological mechanisms underpinning this learning strategies. If you enjoy learning about the psychology of learning, neuropsychology and biological psychology then you’ll love today’s episode.


Today’s psychology podcast episode has been sponsored by Retrieval-Based Learning: A Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology Guide To Learning. Available from all major eBook retailers and you can order the paperback and hardback copies from Amazon, your local bookstore and local library, if you request it. Also available as an AI-narrated audiobook from selected audiobook platforms and library systems. For example, Kobo, Spotify, Barnes and Noble, Google Play, Overdrive, Baker and Taylor and Bibliotheca.


Note: as always all the references for this podcast episode can be found at the bottom of the blog post.


What Is Retrieval-Based Learning? (Extract from Retrieval-Based Learning. COPYRIGHT 2024 CONNOR WHITELEY)

Kicking off this book and as I mentioned in the introduction, we’re going to be following the structure of my dissertation and I’m going to introduce you to this brilliant and really interesting topic before explaining more about the experiment itself.


Therefore, we can probably know, learning is critical in everyday life from learning how to ride a bike to how to revise effectively for exams to how to drive a car, learning is everywhere, and we also know that learning requires a lot of cognitive skills including memory retrieval as retrieval enhances learning (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006).


Knowing the above is important because it is this understanding of the skills behind learning that lead to the development of retrieval-based learning tasks. As well as this is where learners’ re-access newly learnt stimuli by undergoing tests.


Typically, participants in a retrieval-based learning task have an initial learning phase, where learners are tested on said stimuli, next is a testing phase, where the learners are tested on this material. Also, retrieval-based learning tasks utilise various combinations of these study-test blocks. Such as, STST, STTT, etc (Pyke et al., 2021).


Whereas when a researcher decides to use a control condition, in this case learners aren’t tested on the learnt material and all learners complete a final assessment to measure their overall learning, with these assessments taking place minutes (Smith et al., 2013) or months (Carpenter et al., 2009) after the previous phases. You’ll see how we did this in two chapter’s time.


In addition, retrieval-based learning tasks have been found in research to be beneficial for a wide range of populations, including patients (Friedman et al., 2017), children (Lipowski et al., 2014) and older adults (Coane, 2013) and retrieval-based learning reliably shows increased long-term retention of learnt stimuli compared to study-only conditions (Agarwal et al., 2008; Fazio & Marsh, 2019; Karpicke & Grimaldi, 2012; Roediger & Butler, 2011).


Personally, after learning and looking at that small introduction to retrieval-based learning, I have to admit that this type of learning is really interesting. Because something me and the girls I was working with said was that when we were first introduced to the project we weren’t sure if this was going to work.


Since this literature sounds great and very, very impressive but don’t all overexaggerated things? Like social priming, the research sounds amazing, for example the idea that holding a warm mug of coffee can make you more positive. It sounds fun and great but the research is beyond stupid.


That’s sort of what me and my friends thought about retrieval-based learning when we first encountered it, but I promise you it really is amazing and fascinating to see in action.

Anyway, the very notion of learning via retrieval started in the early 20th century (Abbott, 1909; Gates, 1917, Spitzer, 1939) and it was Bjork’s (1994) Desirable Difficulties Framework that bought the idea of difficulty and effort into the forefront of retrieval-based learning and it does nicely fit with retrieval-based learning for this reason. Due to the Framework proposes an effective way to improve long-term retention by learnt stimuli is to introduce a desirable amount of difficulty (effort) whilst learning.


Furthermore, the role of effort in retrieval-based learning can be explained by the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis (REH) which is consistent with Bjork’s (1994) framework because the REH states the more difficult retrieval is, the more effort the learner requires and this increases the probability the material will be consolidated in the long-term memory and make the retrieval easier later on as supported by several studies (Carprenter & DeLosh, 2006; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Pyc & Rawson, 2009).


Nonetheless, the biggest problem with this theory is that REH has been criticised for being too descriptive (Karpicke et al., 2014) and fails to explain how effort could produce memory benefits. As well as the literature agrees it remains difficult to truly compare cued recall and free recall tests because of aspects like false alarm rates and response pressure in cued recall tests (Ozubko, 2011).


What Theories And Models Explain The Effectiveness Of Retrieval-Based Learning?

In addition, this is where we get into the information that isn’t covered in my project because I didn’t feel like it was relevant to the actual focus of the investigation. But I want to include it in here because it helps to explain the general background to learning better.


As a result, a range of theories have been put forward over the decades to explain the effectiveness of retrieval-based learning. One such theory is the Stretch Theory  (Murdock & Dufty, 1972; Norman & Wickelgren, 1969; Wickelgren & Norman, 1966) because this provides researchers with a general theoretical model for recognition memory, where the more information is recalled or “remembered” the stronger the memory trace. Leaving a physical record of the memories in the brain (Thompson, 2005) and the more this is recalled the easier the information is to recall in the future.


Moreover, another theory is the Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP) theory and this states the initial practise test prepares the participant for the final test by eliciting a similar type of working memory processing compared to studying the material alone (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Consequently, the testing effect, where the performance difference between the study-only and RBL group, is greater when the task used in the initial encoding is the same as the final test. This is where the baseline and training sessions aren’t similar to all the testing phases we use because we wanted to make sure the performance of the participant was down to them learning and not the Testing Effect.


Thirdly, the Bifurcation model proposed by Kornell et al. (2011) states during a retrieval-based learning condition using free or cued recall tests without corrective feedback, a split occurs in later recall tests. Successfully retrieved items on an initial test creates a stronger memory trace, compared to items that are forgotten. Therefore, creating a bifurcated item distribution where initially recalled items are more likely to be remembered later on compared to items that are forgotten.


In other words, participants are more likely to remember correct answers than wrong ones because during the training sessions the correct answers make a stronger memory trace so these are recalled later, and the wrong answers are forgotten.


What Is An Alternative Theory To REH?

Personally, I would have liked to include this theory in my project but I did understand how this didn’t really add anything to the final submission. Yet I really did want to add it in this book so you can understand how learning happens according to a wide range of theories and models.


Nonetheless, you might have noticed that all the above theories and models focus on the idea of the learner having to put effort into learning and there’s the idea of a physical memory trace. But are there any other ideas to explain the effectiveness of retrieval-based learning?

One alternative theory is the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) by Sweller (1988) and Sweller et al. (1998) and this aims to explain the link between cognitive load (processing load) and how this impacts a learner’s ability to manage new information and learning tasks and how this is later built into knowledge in the long-term memory.


In addition, this theory is built on three critical assumptions. Firstly, the long-term memory consists of schemas categorising information based on how it will be used (Chi et al., 1982) and has an unlimited capacity. Secondly, the working memory has limited capacity and consists of multiple semi-independent subsystems. These two assumptions form a third where learning is most effective when instructional procedures are used limiting the working memory load whilst concurrently encouraging schema formation.


In terms of research support for Cognitive Load Theory, the evidence mainly comes from studies that show the supporting effects that the theory proposes (Sweller et al., 1998). For instance, the goal-free effect, this is where learners encounter a novel problem without a schema readily available to help them, making the learners engage in a means-end Analysis (MEA), where they identify a goal state and problem state. Once they’ve done this, these two states require the learner to reconcile the differences between the states using a problem-solving operator (Sweller, 1988) and if no goal state is clear for the learner, they identify the problem state and apply a problem-solving operator to this problem. The theory is backed by practice as research shows in multiple experimental contexts this method reduces working memory load and increases schema construction, resulting in improved memorisation (Ayres, 1993; Bobis et al., 1994; Owen & Sweller, 1985; Vollmeyer et al., 1996).


What Is Transfer Effect?

Now that we understand a lot about learning and how retrieval-based learning works from a theoretical standpoint, let’s move onto what the project actually focused on, or at least the viewpoint that I wanted to explore in depth for the sake of my dissertation.


I really wanted to focus on something known as Transfer Effect.


This is a theory that is officially called Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP) or Transfer Effect and this is the proactive use of prior learning in a novel context (Pan & Rickard, 2018) with this brand-new context potentially referring to any situation that is somehow different to the context the learning originally took place in (McDaniel, 2007). Such as, a different test type, goal or topic (Barnett & Ceci, 2002).


In addition, this links to effort because the TAP proposes a process of spreading activation occurs during the search for answers on a test (Anderson, 1996; Collins & Loftus, 1975; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981), creating multiple retrieval cues to aid later recall. This results in the testing effect (Pan & Rickard, 2018) and Pan and Rickard (2018) believed Transfer Effects could result from the same mechanism, because semantically-related information similar to the previously learnt stimuli needs to be recalled on a transfer test.


As a result, the process of spreading activation that presumably occurs during the initial testing increases the likelihood this learnt information will be recallable as well (Carpenter, 2011; Chan, 2009; Chan, McDermott, & Roediger, 2006; Cranney, Ahn, McKinnon, Morris, & Watts, 2009) suggesting participants implicitly employ techniques to carry out learning resulting in effort likely being reduced.


On the whole, Pan and Rickard (2018) concluded test-enhanced learning could yield transfer performance substantially better than non-testing re-exposure conditions. This supports this paper’s examination as our Retrieval-Based Learning task will help to provide further evidence for the efficacy of test-enhanced learning and Transfer Effects.


In other words, Transfer Effect is all about how a learner applies the learning they did in one context and transfers that learning to another similar context so they can do just as well as they did in the same similar context. As we go on through the book, you’ll understand how this happens in our training sessions.


 

I really hope you enjoyed today’s clinical psychology podcast episode.


If you want to learn more, please check out:


Retrieval-Based Learning: A Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology Guide To Learning. Available from all major eBook retailers and you can order the paperback and hardback copies from Amazon, your local bookstore and local library, if you request it. Also available as an AI-narrated audiobook from selected audiobook platforms and library systems. For example, Kobo, Spotify, Barnes and Noble, Google Play, Overdrive, Baker and Taylor and Bibliotheca.



Have a great day.


Cognitive Psychology References and Further Reading

Whiteley, C. (2024) Retrieval-Based Learning: A Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology Guide To Learning CGD Publishing. England


Abbott, E. E. (1909). On the analysis of the factor of recall in the learning process. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 11(1), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093018


Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H., Roediger III, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open‐and closed‐book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(7), 861-876.


Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.51.4.355


Ayres, P. L. (1993). Why Goal-Free Problems Can Facilitate Learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1027


Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612


Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. (pp. 185–205). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ci0TDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA185&ots=qG4y4uPvYs&sig=dDuK6kAtBmrkeOe5AsfI3nmK3aM


Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1994). Demands imposed on primary-school students by geometric models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1010


Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1547–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024140


Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193405


Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests to enhance 8th grade students' retention of US history facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 23(6), 760-771.


Chan, J. C. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 153-170.


Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.553


, Glaser, & Rees. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (pp. 7–75). Erlbaum, Hillsdale.


Coane, J. H. (2013). Retrieval practice and elaborative encoding benefit memory in younger and older adults. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(2), 95-100.


Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407– 428. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407


Cranney, J., Ahn, M., McKinnon, R., Morris, S., & Watts, K. (2009). The testing effect, collaborative learning, and retrieval-induced facilitation in a classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 919-940.


Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2019). Retrieval-based learning in children. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 111-116.


Friedman, R. B., Sullivan, K. L., Snider, S. F., Luta, G., & Jones, K. T. (2017). Leveraging the test effect to improve maintenance of the gains achieved through cognitive rehabilitation. Neuropsychology, 31(2), 220.


Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6(40). https://archive.org/stream/recitationasafa00gategoog?ref=ol#page/n22/mode/2up


Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401-418.


Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002


Lipowski, S. L., Pyc, M. A., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2014). Establishing and explaining the testing effect in free recall for young children. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 994.


McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Transfer: Rediscovering a central concept. In H. L. Roediger, Y. Dudai, & S.


M. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Science of memory: Concepts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


Murdock, B. B., & Dufty, P. O. (1972). Strength theory and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032795


Mussel, P., Ulrich, N., Allen, J. J., Osinsky, R., & Hewig, J. (2016). Patterns of theta oscillation reflect the neural basis of individual differences in epistemic motivation. Scientific reports, 6(1), 1-10.


Norman, D. A., & Wickelgren, W. A. (1969). Strength theory of decision rules and latency in retrieval from short-term memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(69)90002-9


Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What Do Students Learn While Solving Mathematics Problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.272


Ozubko, J. (2011). Is Free Recall Actually Superior to Cued Recall? Introducing the Recognized Recall Procedure to Examine the Costs and Benefits of Cueing. A Thesis Presented to the University of Waterloo.


Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological bulletin, 144(7), 710.


Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004


Pyke, W., Vostanis, A., & Javadi, A. H. (2021). Electrical Brain Stimulation During a Retrieval-Based Learning Task Can Impair Long-Term Memory. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 5(2), 218-232.


Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.88.2.93


Roediger III, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(1), 20-27.


Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science, 17(3), 249-255.


Smith, M. A., Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2013). Covert retrieval practice benefits retention as much as overt retrieval practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1712.


Spitzer, H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(9), 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063404

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4


Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205


Thompson, R. F. (2005). In search of memory traces. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 1-23.


Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). The Impact of Goal Specificity on Strategy Use and the Acquisition of Problem Structure. Cognitive Science, 20(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2001_3


I truly hope that you’ve enjoyed this blog post and if you feel like supporting the blog on an ongoing basis and get lots of rewards, then please head to my Patreon page.

However, if want to show one-time support and appreciation, the place to do that is PayPal. If you do that, please include your email address in the notes section, so I can say thank you.

Which I am going to say right now. Thank you!

Click  https://www.buymeacoffee.com/connorwhiteley for a one-time bit of support.

3 views0 comments

Comentários


FOLLOW ME

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon

© 2024 by Connor Whiteley. Proudly created with Wix.com

This website does make use of affilate links.

bottom of page