Why students do (or do not) choose retrieval practice: Their perceptions of mental effort during task performance matter
Open accessAbstract
Although retrieval practice is a more effective learning strategy than restudy, students oftentimes prefer the latter. Previous studies have investigated this suboptimal decision at strategy level. The present study, however, focused on the learning task level: How perceived mental effort and perceived learning during task performance influence learning strategy decisions. Participants rated their mental effort and learning when memorizing anatomical image‐name tasks, choosing either retrieval practice or restudy for each task. Moreover, the actual learning after each strategy was measured and presented as feedback. The results suggested that higher task‐based perceived mental effort was directly related to reduced retrieval practice choice. Task‐based perceived learning partially mediated the effect of task‐based perceived mental effort on retrieval practice choice after feedback. Students chose retrieval practice more often after feedback. These findings underscore the importance of task‐based perceived mental effort to learning strategy decisions and the potential of feedback to optimize these decisions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Learners' effort ratings directly predicted their use of the desirable difficulty retrieval practice, and perceived learning did not appear to play a role.
“Here, learners' effort ratings directly predicted their use of the desirable difficulty retrieval practice, and perceived learning did not appear to play a role.”
From Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework (2023) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2022
The Results section reports that higher task-based perceived mental effort directly predicted reduced retrieval-practice choice. It also says task-based perceived learning partially mediated that relationship after feedback, so the unqualified claim that perceived learning did not play a role is not supported. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBefore feedback, learners' strategy decisions displayed evidence for the 'effort is costly' belief, showing that learners' perceived effort was directly associated with their strategy decisions, but perceived learning did not play a role.
“Before feedback, learners' strategy decisions displayed evidence for the 'effort is costly' belief, showing that learners' perceived effort was directly associated with their strategy decisions, but perceived learning did not play a role.”
From Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework (2023) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2022
The Results report that, before feedback, task-based perceived mental effort directly influenced strategy decisions, while task-based perceived learning did not significantly mediate that relationship. The discussion says perceived learning stopped affecting decisions once mental effort was included in the model. Saying perceived learning ‘did not play a role’ is broader than that finding: the Results also report a weak positive relation between strategy-based perceived learning and pre-feedback retrieval-practice choices. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAfter feedback, a partial mediation model was observed: learners' strategy decisions were directly affected by effort ratings and indirectly through perceived learning.
“After feedback, a partial mediation model was observed: Learners' strategy decisions were directly affected by effort ratings and indirectly through perceived learning.”
From Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework (2023) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2022
In the context of desirable difficulties, the negative effect of perceiving effort as costly or aversive was observed in research by Hui and colleagues (2022).
“In the context of desirable difficulties, the negative effect of perceiving effort as costly or aversive was also observed in research by Hui and colleagues (2022).”
From Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework (2023) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research
Panadero, E. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 · Cited by 2,915 · see citing works
Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x · Cited by 2,867 · see citing works
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x · Cited by 2,037 · see citing works
Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 · Cited by 1,468 · see citing works
The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect.
Rowland, C. A. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037559 · Cited by 1,066 · see citing works
The promise and perils of self-regulated study
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03194055 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates
McCabe, J. (2011) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2 · Cited by 308 · see citing works
Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning
Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1101 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval
Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0274-5 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Looking at Mental Effort Appraisals through a Metacognitive Lens: Are they Biased?
Scheiter, K., Ackerman, R., & Hoogerheide, V. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09555-9 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 432-447.
- Ariel, R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Improving self-regulated learning with a retrieval practice intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1), 43-56.
- Baars, M., Wijnia, L., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2020). The relation between students' effort and monitoring judgments during learning: A meta- analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 979-1002.
- Biwer, F., Oude Egbrink, M. G., Aalten, P., & de Bruin, A. B. (2020). Foster- ing effective learning strategies in higher education-A mixed-methods study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), 186-203.
- Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563.
- Coppens, L. C., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Rikers, R. M. (2011). Learning Adinkra sym- bols: The effect of testing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 351-357.
- de Bruin, A. B., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-reg- ulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Elsevier.
- Dirkx, K. J. H., Camp, G., Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019). Do secondary school students make use of effective study strategies when they study on their own? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 952-957.
- Dobson, J. L., & Linderholm, T. (2015). Self-testing promotes superior retention of anatomy and physiology information. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(1), 149-161.
- Einstein, G. O., Mullet, H. G., & Harrison, T. L. (2012). The testing effect: Illustrating a fundamental concept and changing study strategies. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 190-193.
- Fiorella, L. (2020). The science of habit and its implications for student learning and well-being. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 603-625.
- Geller, J., Toftness, A. R., Armstrong, P. I., Carpenter, S. K., Manz, C. L., Coffman, C. R., & Lamm, M. H. (2018). Study strategies and beliefs about learning as a function of academic achievement and achieve- ment goals. Memory, 26(5), 683-690.
- Hui, L., de Bruin, A. B., Donkers, J., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2021a). Does individual performance feedback increase the use of retrieval practice? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1835-1857.
- Hui, L., de Bruin, A. B. H., Donkers, J., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2021b). Stimulating the intention to change learning strategies: The role of narratives. International Journal of Educational Research, 107, 101753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101753 · DOI · Paper page
- Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469-486.
- Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue- utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349-370.
- Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Judgments of learning depend on how learners interpret study effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1624.
- Schmeck, A., Opfermann, M., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Leutner, D. (2015). Measuring cognitive load with subjective rating scales during problem solving: Differences between immediate and delayed ratings. Instruc- tional Science, 43(1), 93-114.
- Seufert, T. (2020). Building bridges between self-regulation and cognitive load-An invitation for a broad and differentiated attempt. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 1151-1162.
- Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: Children's short-term versus long-term study strategies. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 347-364.
- Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204.
- Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self- regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self- paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024.
- Toppino, T. C., LaVan, M. H., & Iaconelli, R. T. (2018). Metacognitive con- trol in self-regulated learning: Conditions affecting the choice of restudying versus retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 46(7), 1164- 1177.
- Tullis, J. G., Fiechter, J. L., & Benjamin, A. S. (2018). The efficacy of learners' testing choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(4), 540.
- van de Pol, J., van Loon, M., van Gog, T., Braumann, S., & de Bruin, A. (2020). Mapping and drawing to improve students' and teachers' moni- toring and regulation of students' learning from text: Current findings and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 951-977.
- Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the origi- nal construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 16-26.
- Vaughn, K. E., & Kornell, N. (2019). How to activate students' natural desire to test themselves. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implica- tions, 4(1), 35.
- Vuorre, M., & Bolger, N. (2018). Within-subject mediation analysis for experimental data in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 2125-2143.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making Sense of Generative Learning
Fiorella, L. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09769-7 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework
de Bruin, A. B. H., Biwer, F., Hui, L., Onan, E., David, L., & Wiradhany, W. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09766-w · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citationTesting the testing effect with advanced materials while accounting for individual differences
Redifer, J. L., Myers, S. J., Bae, C. L., Naas, A., & Scott, A. (2026) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-025-09758-z · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hui, L., de Bruin, A. B. H., Donkers, J., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Department of Educational Development & Research, School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences Maastricht University Maastricht Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Hui, Luotong
- Venue
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 433-444
- ISSN
- 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0720
- OpenAlex
- W4221108095
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- China Scholarship Council (201708120059)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- retrieval practice, restudy, perceived learning, feedback
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
