CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 310Memory Processes and InfluencesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning.

Karpicke, Jeffrey D.·2009·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
DOI 10.1037/a0017341
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Retrieval practice is a potent technique for enhancing learning, but how often do students practice retrieval when they regulate their own learning? In 4 experiments the subjects learned foreign-language items across multiple study and test periods. When items were assigned to be repeatedly tested, repeatedly studied, or removed after they were recalled, repeated retrieval produced powerful effects on learning and retention. However, when subjects were given control over their own learning and could choose to test, study, or remove items, many subjects chose to remove items rather than practice retrieval, leading to poor retention. In addition, when tests were inserted in the learning phase, attempting retrieval improved learning by enhancing subsequent encoding during study. But when students were given control over their learning they did not attempt retrieval as early or as often as they should to promote the best learning. The experiments identify a compelling metacognitive illusion that occurs during self-regulated learning: Once students can recall an item they tend to believe they have "learned" it. This leads students to terminate practice rather than practice retrieval, a strategy choice that ultimately results in poor retention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017341

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • When asked to make item-based judgments of learning, individuals often indicate they will remember restudied material better than tested material, when the opposite is nearly always true.

    “In terms of the testing effect, when asked to make item-based judgments of learning, individuals often indicate that they will remember restudied material better than tested material, when the opposite is nearly always true (e.g., Karpicke, 2009; Kornell & Son, 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006).”

    From The benefits of successive relearning on multiple learning outcomes. (2022) · cites this paper as Karpicke, 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karpicke, J. D.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Karpicke, Jeffrey D.
ORCID
Karpicke, Jeffrey D.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2009
Volume
138
Issue
4
Pages
469-486
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
DOI
10.1037/a0017341
OpenAlex
W2090089663
Cited by
310
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 25
FWCI
10.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Psychological Association
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
metacognitive regulation, strategy selection, retrieval practice, student self-regulation, foreign language learning, retention, encoding, metacognitive beliefs, metacognitive monitoring
MeSH terms
Cognition, Decision Making, Humans, Language, Learning, Practice, Psychological, Reading, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Students

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