Calculator use need not undermine direct-access ability: The roles of retrieval, calculation, and calculator use in the acquisition of arithmetic facts.
Abstract
Why is subsequent recall sometimes better for self-generated answers than for answers obtained from an external source (e.g., calculator)? In this study, we explore the relative contribution of 2 processes, recall attempts and self-computation, to this generation effect (i.e., enhanced answer recall relative to when problems are practiced with a calculator). Adults (N = 36) practiced unfamiliar alphabet arithmetic problems (A + 4 = ?; answer E), in 3 learning conditions: self-generating answers through recall or counting (self-generate learning), obtaining answers with a customized calculator (calculator-only learning), or using a calculator after first attempting answer recall (retrieve-else-calculator learning). Subsequently, participants were tested without a calculator. Retrieve-else-calculator learning was expected to produce an intermediate level of performance because it captures the benefits of recall attempts but excludes any benefits of the other self-generation process (mental computation). However, retrieve-else-calculator learning proved as effective as self-generation learning (latency, accuracy, and recall rates on test), and both led to a test performance that was superior to calculator-only learning. We suggest that mental generation processes that involve the retrieval of intermediate products may introduce retrieval interference that precludes a strong contribution to the generation effect. However, tedious mental computation may contribute to superior access indirectly, by inciting automatic recall attempts. This effect can be mimicked by imposing a delay prior to calculator use. Our results are compatible with the view that learning contexts that promote recall activities produce a customized type of knowledge to support cued-recall (Rickard & Bajic, 2006).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Using a calculator in an alphanumerical test led to higher response accuracy but worse subsequent recall of the solution, leading to the conclusion that calculator use results in less active learning than self-generating answers.
“Pyke and LeFevre (2011) observed that using a calculator in an alphanumerical test led to a higher response accuracy but in return to a worse subsequent recall of the solution. They therefore concluded that using a calculator results in less active learning than self-generating answers.”
From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Pyke & LeFevre, 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654316689306 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
The worked example effect, the generation effect, and element interactivity.
Chen, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000018 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory
Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., & Meyerhoff, H. S. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211008060 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
“…the Pattern Copy Task (Morgan et al., 2009, 2013; Waldron et al., 2007), our results also converge with studies reporting the detrimental effects of cognitive offloading in other paradigms (Eskritt & Ma, 2014; Kelly & Risko, 2019; O’Hara & Payne, 1998; Pyke & LeFevre, 2011; Sparrow et al., 2011).”
BackgroundResultA randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K., & Cheung, C.-N. (2020) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000367 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Relations between the worked example and generation effects on immediate and delayed tests
Chen, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2016) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.007 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pyke, A. A., & LeFevre, J.-A.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 607-616
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W1982937712
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- arithmetic fact learning, calculator use, generation effect, mental arithmetic, retrieval interference, arithmetic fact retrieval, cued recall
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