The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning?
Open accessAbstract
The development of students’ higher order learning is a critical component of education. For decades, educators and scientists have engaged in an ongoing debate about whether higher order learning can only be enhanced by building a base of factual knowledge (analogous to Bloom’s taxonomy) or whether higher order learning can be enhanced directly by engaging in complex questioning and materials. The relationship between fact learning and higher order learning is often speculated, but empirically unknown. In this study, middle school students and college students engaged in retrieval practice with fact questions, higher order questions, or a mix of question types to examine the optimal type of retrieval practice for enhancing higher order learning. In laboratory and K-12 settings, retrieval practice consistently increased delayed test performance, compared with rereading or no quizzes. Critically, higher order and mixed quizzes improved higher order test performance, but fact quizzes did not. Contrary to popular intuition about higher order learning and Bloom’s taxonomy, building a foundation of knowledge via fact-based retrieval practice may be less potent than engaging in higher order retrieval practice, a key finding for future research and classroom application. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Analyzing Tables of Statistical Tests
Rice, W. R. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2409177 · Cited by 14,571
BRUNER, J. S. (1960) · doi:10.4159/9780674028999 · Cited by 6,042
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612453266 · Cited by 3,138
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
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4 · Cited by 2,552 · cited 3×
“Furthermore, a classic study by Gick and Holyoak (1980) demonstrated that students’ conceptual knowledge remains “inert” when not explicitly told to use previously learned information on novel items (see also Bransford, Sherwood, Vye, & Rieser, 1986; Pan & Rickard, in press).”
BackgroundInfluentialPaas, F. G. W. C. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 · Cited by 2,150
When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612 · Cited by 2,076 · cited 3×
“More recently, a taxonomy by Barnett and Ceci (2002) is being used to classify students’ transfer of knowledge across a number of content and context domains, including physical location, type of task, and format.”
BackgroundMethodThe 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
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 · cited 1×
“When students engage in retrieval activities that bring knowledge to mind, learning is strengthened by the challenge (for recent meta-analyses, see Adesope, Trevisan, & Sundararajan, 2017; Rowland, 2014).”
BackgroundRetrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1199327 · Cited by 1,019
Cited by
Ng, D. T. K., Wu, W., Leung, J. K. L., Chiu, T. K. F., & Chu, S. K. W. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13411 · Cited by 390
Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9 · Cited by 211
Self-citationProbing Internal Assumptions of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
Larsen, T. M., Endo, B. H., Yee, A. T., Do, T., & Lo, S. M. (2022) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.20-08-0170 · Cited by 54
Gurung, R. A. R., & Burns, K. (2019) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3507 · Cited by 42
Zhu, Y., Zhu, C., Wu, T., Wang, S., Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Wu, F., & Li, Y. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12898-3 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Agarwal, P. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 189-209
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W2807536374
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 7.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/edu0000282
- The paper
- Agarwal, P. K. (2019). Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000282
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
