## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Active recall strengthens memory**: Testing effect is more powerful than re-reading notes (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) > - **Spacing prevents forgetting**: Daily, weekly, monthly intervals build automaticity and prevent forgetting (Cepeda et al., 2006) > - **Mixed topics optimise learning**: Interleaving forces strategy selection and discrimination between methods (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007) ## Definition **Retrieval practice**: Students actively recalling information from long-term memory to working memory, which strengthens memory pathways more than passive review (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). ## Overview Retrieval practice refers to the process of actively recalling information from memory, which strengthens memory pathways more effectively than passive review (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008). The testing effect, documented across decades of cognitive research, provides the empirical foundation for this approach (Roediger & Butler, 2011). Retrieval practice is effective when students have learnt the material initially, when practice is spaced over time rather than massed (Cepeda et al., 2006), and when topics are interleaved rather than blocked (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). Common implementations include starter activities, low-stakes quizzes, and homework assignments. ## Connected to [[Spacing Effect]] | [[Interleaving Effect]] | [[Cognitive Load]] | [[Memory]] | [[Self-Explanation Effect]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] | [[Mathemagenic Activities]] --- ## The science behind retrieval practice Retrieval practice uses the **testing effect**, in which retrieving information from memory enhances future recall more effectively than passive review (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Karpicke & Blunt, 2011). The process optimises [[Cognitive Load|germane load]] by strengthening memory pathways (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). A comprehensive review of learning techniques evaluated ten commonly used strategies on their effectiveness and generalisability across different learners and materials (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013). The review assigned utility ratings based on research evidence: **High utility**: Practice testing (retrieval practice) and distributed practice (spacing) received the highest ratings. These techniques showed consistent benefits across diverse conditions, learners, and materials. Practice testing improves long-term retention more than rereading, whilst distributed practice proves more effective than massed practice. **Moderate utility**: Elaborative interrogation (generating explanations), self-explanation (relating new to known information), and interleaved practice received moderate ratings. These techniques show promise but require more training or have limited applicability. **Low utility**: Summarisation, highlighting/underlining, keyword mnemonics, imagery for text, and rereading received low ratings. These widely used techniques provide minimal benefit compared to retrieval practice and spaced practice. Students often highlight too much or inappropriate content, whilst rereading creates familiarity without strengthening retrieval pathways. This evidence demonstrates that students should be taught high-utility strategies and understand why they work. Many popular study techniques provide minimal learning benefit compared to active retrieval and distributed practice (Dunlosky et al., 2013). ![[RetrievalPractice.png|600]] > [!warning] Essential prerequisite > Students must have properly learnt the content before being quizzed on it (Agarwal et al., 2021). For struggling students who haven't understood the material, retrieval practice becomes ineffective as they're consolidating nothing but rather guessing at "thin air of vaguely‑encountered wisps of disconnected factoids from a dim past". This can highlight gaps but may demotivate students rather than strengthen memory. ## Opportunities for retrieval practice Effective implementation embeds retrieval practice throughout the learning cycle (Agarwal et al., 2021). Four types of activity support knowledge retention. "Do Now" activities use four mixed questions with an 80% target success rate, taking five minutes for independent work and five minutes for review. These activities draw on spaced retrieval unrelated to the current lesson to build automaticity across topics. Low-stakes quizzes mix topics from various previous units in a closed-book format, typically running weekly for 15-20 minutes to provide systematic review and diagnosis. Homework assignments employ spaced mixed practice of previously learnt content for consolidation and retention. Interweaving embeds old topics within new lessons on a daily basis, placing prior topics in current context to maintain skills and discrimination between methods. ## Implementing "Do Now" activities "Do Now" activities follow a specific structure. Each session uses exactly four questions from different topics, pitched at an 80% success rate (Rosenshine, 2012; Wilson et al., 2019). Students work independently for five minutes, followed by five minutes of review. Teachers typically use mini-whiteboards for whole-class response, addressing one question at a time. [[Responsive Teaching]] informs the review: if fewer than 80% answer correctly, the teacher models the solution and rechecks understanding; if more than 80% answer correctly, the teacher confirms the answer and moves on. For example, a "Do Now" might include fractions from three weeks ago, angles from last week, algebra from yesterday, and a prerequisite concept for today's lesson. ## Implementing low-stakes quizzes Low-stakes quizzes require complete silence to ensure individual retrieval rather than recognition. The content mixes topics from various previous units, with difficulty targeted at 80% average success rate to maintain motivation. The closed-book format ensures genuine retrieval. Quizzes typically run 15-20 minutes with extension questions for early finishers. Friday quizzes might mix percentages, area, equations, and statistics rather than testing topics in isolation, which forces students to discriminate between methods. The quiz process follows a consistent sequence. Before attempting questions, students rate their confidence in potential answers on a 1-5 scale. Immediate feedback follows through self or peer assessment. Students then [[Self-Explanation Effect|self-explain]] incorrect answers, with particular attention to high-confidence errors. Personal progress tracking in dedicated folders allows students to monitor their development over time. Teachers use quiz data to address common misconceptions identified across the class. ## Practical application Retrieval practice requires structured opportunities for active recall across daily, weekly, and monthly intervals. The approach must follow initial learning, as students need to understand content before retrieval practice begins. Teachers use mini-whiteboards, ensure silent individual work, provide immediate feedback, and track progress data. The forgetting curve shows rapid memory loss without systematic review, whilst spacing and interleaving optimise long-term retention. The approach provides diagnostic data about student understanding for teachers, identifies topics requiring reteaching, and informs future lesson planning and curriculum pacing. For students, the practice builds long-term retention and automaticity, develops metacognitive awareness of their learning, and promotes consistent study habits over cramming. Regular, low-stakes practice reduces anxiety and creates opportunities for success and confidence building. ## Limitations and cautions Students must understand content before retrieval practice begins. Otherwise they consolidate guesswork rather than knowledge. Recognition through multiple choice differs from recall, so open-ended questions provide better practice. Making quizzes high-stakes increases anxiety and reduces learning benefits. Massed practice is less effective than distributed practice, so spacing remains essential. Struggling students need extra support to avoid demotivation from repeated failure. ## References Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. *Educational Psychology Review*, 33(4), 1409-1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9 Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. *Psychological Bulletin*, 132(3), 354-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. *Science*, 331(6018), 772-775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327 Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. *Science*, 319(5865), 966-968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408 Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 15(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. *Psychological Science*, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. *Instructional Science*, 35(6), 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19, 39. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 Wilson, M., Scalise, K., & Gochyyev, P. (2019). Measuring growth in learning: Monitoring instruction with learning progressions. *Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives*, 17(3), 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2019.1593777 ---