3 articles attached

Retrieval Practice
Author Name
Institutional Affiliation

Retrieval Practice
Introduction
Overview. Learning is important. However, the ability to retain and retrieve the leaned content is what defines the effectiveness of a learning process. Scholastic opinions have, for a long time, been divided on the hypothesis that retrieval practice facilitates effective learning. Racsmány, Szőllősi, and Bencze (2018) submit that retrieval practice promote long-term knowledge through quick and automatized processing of certain cue-target associations. The three also states that recalls practiced through retrieval techniques show a reduced possibility of being forgotten and are resilient to injuries and effects of interference. Pan and Rickard (2017) established that retrieval practice is the most effective learning strategy as it facilitates later memory of practiced responses. Tempel and Frings (2016) also accept the postulate that retrieval practice boosts memory retention for practiced items. They, however, explain that retrieval practice can similarly be detrimental as it can impair unpracticed memories.
Definition of terms. Testing effect is the idea that repeated knowledge practice evokes more effective long-term learning than supplementary restudies of the same information. Retrieval practice is the act of recovering or regaining information from memory. For instance, after learning, it is always expected that students remember, for a long period, what they have learned. So, the effort to remember information stored in the memory is what is referred to as retrieval practice.

Evidence shows that retrieval practice can either be overt or covert. Overt retrieval practice involves thinking and producing active responses. Covert retrieval practice, on the other hands, refers to thinking without producing responses.
Research Questions
Is retrieval practice beneficial?
If so, what type is more effective? Covert or overt?
Hypothesis
H0: Both overt and covert retrieval practices are equally beneficial to memory retention
H1: Overt and covert retrieval practices are not equally beneficial to memory retention; one better than the other.
Literature Review
Racsmány et al. (2018), Pan and Rickard (2017), and Tempel and Frings (2016) agree that retrieval practice is a learning strategy that improves long-term memory. Racsmány et al. (2018) note that items practiced through retrieval are unlikely to be forgotten and have a longstanding benefit compared to study practice. Looking into other studies, Racsmány et al. found out that retrieval practice with reasonably sporadic and weak retrieval prompts results in better memory than retrieval practice with strong and repeated prompts. The three researchers also established that the number of trials accorded to a retrieval practice matters a lot; the many the trials, the better the outcome. However, to investigate the relevance of these claims, Racsmány et al. (2018) experimented the automatization of testing effect. In this study, Racsmány et al. aimed to explain to how retrieval practice boosts long-term retention of memories. They did three experiments, all centering on the reaction time of the participants. Each experiment had a different number of participants. Nonetheless, all of them involved memory tasks, which were to be completed in three phases: learning, practice, and final phase. In the final discovery, Racsmány et al. (2018) found out that reaction time of participants decreases with increase in retrieval practice. Therefore, in Racsmány et al.’s understanding, the decrease implied that retrieval practice improves memory.
Pan and Rickard (2017) studied how retrieval practice compares to restudy in promoting learning and transfer. The duo also investigated the hypothesis that retrieval practice enhances long-term memory of learned contents. They did four experiments. In every experiment, participants were to study term-definition facts and be trained on over 65% percent of facts based on multiple choice questions with feedbacks. In haft of the test, participants were required to remember some specific terms. In the other half, participants were to remember definitions of terms. Other terms neither trained nor restudied. In their final result, Pan and Rickard (2017) realized that practiced terms and definitions yield better results than unpracticed terms. Also, in contrast, to restudy, retrieval practice produced better and consistent outcome regarding positive transfer and learning.
Tempel and Frings (2016) point the downside of retrieval practice. The duet maintains that retrieval practice is beneficial in some instances but detrimental in other situations. In their view, retrieval practice leads to loss of memory, especially, for unpracticed items. The practiced elements of memory overshadow the unpracticed ones, heightening the probability of them being forgotten in the long-run. Tempel and Frings (2016) experimented to ascertain their proposition. In the experiment, Tempel and Frings’ investigated the retrieval-induced forgetting in motor sequences. They used finger movements with specific letters as stimuli. In the end, the two confirmed that retrieval, indeed, causes loss of memories of unpracticed items. Nevertheless, Tempel and Frings (2016) still confirm other researchers’ discoveries regarding retrieval practice; retrieval practice is an important tool for learning.
In their research scrutinizing substantial effects of retrieval practice on retention, Putnam and Roediger (2013) found that retrieval practice facilitates retention and learning in a variety of situations. The researchers note that testing benefits retention through a different range of activities and materials, such as pictures, video lectures, foreign language vocabulary words, natural events, and word lists. Correspondingly, Ross (2012) also found that retrieval practices boost retention in real-world settings, such as colleges and middle-school classrooms. According to Smith and Karpicke (2014), it is because of these positive impacts of retrieval practice on retention that most educational institutions emphasize testing students upon the completion of syllabi. Many psychologists support this line of thought, asserting that retrieval practice is an incomparable learning technique, which if employed well, can result in a successful learning experience. Even more lately, Abel and Roediger (2017), enumerated ten overall benefits of integrating retrieval practice in scholastic settings.
Researchers investigating the significance of retrieval practice tend to perform their examinations in divergent boundary conditions: overt and covert. In overt conditions, subjects are required to show explicit responses by either typing, writing, or speaking them loudly. In convert situations, the information is merely rehearsed mentally without any explicit articulation. Smith (2011) thinks that both covert and overt retrieval practices count equally towards benefitting retention and that eliciting an overt response is not essential when it comes positive retrieval effects. Putnam and Roediger (2013) demonstrated in their experiment that testing improves map learning. Similarly, Abel and Roediger (2017) also studied the mnemonic paybacks of covertly retrieving situations where overt responses are not only time consuming but also difficult.
Based on the literature review, it is apparent that recurrent testing during learning always improves later memory. Therefore, to verify the boundary conditions to this effect, the study investigated whether the retrieval-induced testing effect is selectively subject to overt or covert conditions. We examined whether overt retrieval practice results in retention gains comparable to covert retrieval practice. Albeit some research have illuminated the benefits of overt and covert retrieval practices in the past, it is apparent that the literature on this subject matter is mixed. As some findings show that both overt and covert retrieval practice have similar effects on retention, other findings indicate that overt and covert retrieval practices affect retention on different measures. The following experiments aimed to set a distinction between the two retrieval practices.
Experiment 1
Methods
Participants. 18 students from Dr.Sumeracki’s class participated in the experiment in exchange for an in-depth learning experience. The selection process was done randomly to minimize bias, and all subjects submitted their informed consent before participating.
Materials. All participants received reading packets, PowerPoint presentations, and a pack of 30 questions on two different days. There were both overt and covert retrieval questions. All participants answered the thirty questions on each day. The questions were mixed up for everybody.
Design. The researchers adopted the single factor design since it was the most appropriate design for the conditions of the experiment. ANOVA models were used to draw an analogy between mean response values of students and groups in overall. All factor levels were examined to verify whether responses differed significantly or remained comparable. A paired t-test was also conducted on the confidence data for the overt and covert conditions; t-statistics were recorded for each group.
Results
PAIRED T-test. We used a paired samples t-test to measure within-subject differences in confidence between overt and covert conditions. Based on the t-test readings, the average confidence for covert retrieval was marginally higher than the confidence for overt retrieval t (17) =2.051, p=0.56. While the participants subjected to overt conditions reported average confidence of 3.66 (sd=0.66) on overt retrieval questions, students under covert conditions reported an average confidence 3.66 (sd=0.67).
Repeated measures ANOVA. The researchers performed the repeated measures ANOVA on the overt, covert and read final test data. The analyses indicated there was significant no difference within data for both overt and covert conditions, f(2, 34 ) =1.234, p=.304, ES=.068. Students reported an average confidence reading of 0.5431 (sd =0.22242) for covert condition and 0.5431 (sd =0.22232) for overt condition.
Experiment 2
Methods
Participants. The total number of participants in the experiment were 64. All the participants were drawn from 5 different sections of upper-level research methods classes at Rhode Island College and the University of Massachusetts Lowell. All participants agreed willingly to participate in the experiment.
Materials. All participants were presented with equal and adequate learning materials. However, they were separated into three distinct groups and subjected to different learning conditions. The first group learned in under overt condition. The second group learned under a covert condition. The last group was not subjected to any condition (No Test).
Design. We used the ANOVA model, to test the relationship between the learning outcomes under overt, covert, and NoTest conditions; Post hoc test, to confirm the ANOVA results, and Bonferroni Pairwise comparison, to relate the performance of students under overt and covert conditions.
Results
Repeated-measures ANOVA. Since we have more than two conditions plus a within-subjects design, we had to run a repeated-measures ANOVA. We performed repeated-measures ANOVA on the overt, covert, and No Test conditions and recorded results. The results show that there is a significant difference among the overt, covert, and NoTest conditions, f(2, 126 ) =60.539, p= .000, ES=.490. The implication is that at least two conditions are different from one another. Based on the descriptive statistics, it is evident that both the Overt and Covert conditions produced greater performance than the No Test condition.
Post-hoc tests. Post-hoc tests give a p-value less than .05 when comparing Overt and Covert to No Test), confirming the above results. This also tells us that the Overt and Covert conditions were not different from one another (the p = .911).
Pairwise Comparison. Pairwise comparisons, using the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, indicated that students performed better in the overt condition than the no test condition, and students performed better in the covert condition compared to the no test condition. There was no difference between the overt and covert retrieval conditions
Discussion
Both the literature review and experimental outcomes tend to point to one direction. Overall findings are (1) retrieval practice is beneficial, and (2) covert retrieval practice tend to have the same impact on retention as overt retrieval practice. There is no significant difference between overt and covert retrieval practice. Finding 1 concurs with the initial hypothesis; retrieval practice is beneficial. Finding 2 also confirms the initial (null) hypothesis; both overt and covert retrieval practices are equally beneficial to memory retention. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis in findings 1 and 2.
Findings in both paired t-test and one-way analysis of variance revealed that students showed considerably equal levels of confidence in both covert and overt boundary conditions. The same result plays out in experiment 2, where repeated-measures ANOVA, post hoc examination, and pairwise comparison confirms the similarity of overt and covert retrieval. This similarity implies the type of retrieval practice does not matter in a study session. The difference witnessed among student who practice retrieval regularly can be due to the innate differences. Therefore, sources giving divergent opinions are either bias or not well-researched and reasoned.
Cognitive psychologist often encourages educators to impel students to adopt retrieval practice as a study tactic to help them improve their learning outcomes. The type of retrieval adopted for any learning is not important because both findings indicate clearly that both overt and covert retrieval have similar benefits when it memory retention. Similarly, students should they practice retrieval information during self-testing. The second experiment has proven that students learning under either overt or covert conditions perform better students learning without any of these conditions. So, the integration of either covert or overt retrieval is highly beneficial for study purposes. One criticism for applying retrieval practice is that takes a lot of time to create, administer, and grade tests (Smith, 2011). However, since retrieval practice is more beneficial than what it takes to create, administer, or grade the required tests, it is imperative that scholars emphasize the application of retrieval practice in any learning environment.
Limitations of the Study. The findings of this research were strictly limited to two aspects. First, to verify if retrieval practice is advantageous in any way. Second, to investigate if covert and overt retrieval practices benefit memory retention on the same scales. Also, since participants were drawn from different areas, their difference may have had an impact on the findings. That may be their differential ability to learn, understand, and retrieve the information. There is also a limitation in terms of applicability of these findings. The participants were only a section of students from one college and cannot be representative of the entire populations (learners) due to differences in learning conditions and factors from one place to another.
Future Research. Findings in this paper show that both overt and covert retrieval practice are equally beneficial to retention. Failure to apply retrieval practice also lowers one confidence and ability to remember things learned and understood in earlier occasions. Equally, it would be more important if people could understand the actions and inactions of retrieval both overt and covert retrieval that make them improve memory. Therefore, future research efforts should focus on unraveling the secrets behind overt and covert retrieval that make them boost memory in the long run. This research will help learners to develop different strategies they can use to emphasize overt and covert retrieval in their studies.
Implications. This research adds to the broad literature on retrieval practice by specifically untangling mixed findings on both overt and covert retrieval practices. The general implication is that as students, as well as educators, should emphasize retrieval practice as a one of a kind learning approach. Another implication is that people should not concentrate so much on the kind of retrieval practice they apply to boost their memory since overt and covert retrieval have the same beneficial effect on memory. In fact, for those who are curious, practicing both of this retrieval practices can even yield more benefits than they thought.
Conclusion
Retrieval practice is an important exercise. Besides boosting long-term memory, retrieval practice helps people to learn faster by practicing getting information out of memory and applying it to real-world scenarios. Studies have revealed that testing effect is more beneficial than repeated studies, and to realize better result people must practice retrieval as frequently as possible. Retrieval is the most durable strategy of recalling information from the memory as it lowers the ability to forget. Retrieval practice is, therefore, a critical part of active learning; it is a fundamental starting point. Frequent study activities, such as highlighting, underlining, and restudying do not promote memory retention to any tune comparable to retrieval practice. Recall attempts keep facts live in one’s mind. Overt retrieval is not different from covert retrieval because both of them have the same effect one’s memory retention. As Pan and Rickard (2017) put it, retrieval practice is an affirmative learning technique, with great automatization pattern and hence, the need to emphasize it.

References
Abel, M., & Roediger, H. (2017). Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 81-92. doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0641-8
Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2017). Does Retrieval Practice Enhance Learning and Transfer Relative to Restudy for Term-Definition Facts?. Journal Of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 23(3), 278-292. doi:10.1037/xap0000124
Putnam, A., & Roediger, H. (2013). Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect?. Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 36-48. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0245-x
Racsmány, M., Szőllősi, Á., & Bencze, D. (2018). Retrieval practice makes procedure from remembering: An automatization account of the testing effect. Journal Of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 44(1), 157-166. doi:10.1037/xlm0000423
Ross, B. H. (2012). The psychology of learning and motivation: Volume 56. Oxford: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Smith, M. A. (2011). Covert retrieval practice benefits retention as much as overt retrieval practice. Saint Louis, Mo: Washington University.
Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid tests. Memory, 22(7), 784-802. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.831454
Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2016). How motor practice shapes memory: Retrieval but not extra study can cause forgetting. Memory, 24(7), 903-915.