Smith, M. A., Blunt, J. R., Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 544-553.
Reviewed: August 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Higher order questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Free-Prompted vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Higher order questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Prompted-Prompted vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Verbatim questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Free-Prompted vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Higher order questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Free-Free vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Verbatim questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Prompted-Prompted vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Higher order questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Prompted-Free vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Verbatim questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Prompted-Free vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Verbatim questions |
Retrieval-based learning activities vs. None |
1 Week |
Free-Free vs. comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place at Purdue University among students in an undergraduate Introductory Psychology course.
Demographic data about the sample are not provided.
This study focuses on the impact of retrieval-based learning activities as a tool to promote student learning. It examines two types of retrieval: free recall, which involves reconstructing information purely from memory, and prompted recall, which involves providing cues to help with information retrieval. The intervention took place in one day. All students read for five minutes, and then students in intervention conditions completed a seven-minute recall activity, corresponding to the group to which they were assigned. Students in the Free-Free and Free-Prompted conditions completed a free-recall task, while those in the Prompted-Prompted and Prompted-Free conditions completed a prompted-recall task. All students then completed a rating exercise, responding to questions such as “How well do you think you will remember this material in 1 week?” All students then read a second text, and those in the intervention group completed a second recall activity corresponding to their group assignment. Students in the Free-Free and Prompted-Free conditions completed a free recall task, while those in the Prompted-Prompted and Free-Prompted conditions completed a prompted recall task. Students then repeated the rating exercise.
Students in the comparison condition read the same set of texts, and took the same assessments. However, while students in each of the four intervention groups were completing recall tasks, students in the comparison condition played video games.
No support is provided, since the intervention was administered by the researchers. The study did rely on computer software to assist students with recall activities and to administer assessments.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube