Investigating and explaining the effects of successive relearning on long-term retention.
Abstract
Research on techniques for enhancing long-term retention has focused almost exclusively on single-session learning conditions. However, even the most potent initial learning manipulations typically do not yield retention levels sufficient for successful performance in many real-world contexts. In contrast, successive relearning (i.e., practicing to some level of mastery in multiple learning sessions) is a promising technique for enhancing long-term retention, but surprisingly few studies have been conducted to date. In two experiments, the advantage of successive relearning over single-session learning (i.e., relearning potency ) was substantial, ds = 1.52 to 4.19. Additionally, the effects of initial lag on retention were sizable prior to relearning (ds = 1.07 to 1.87) but attenuated after relearning (ds = -.20 to .38; the extent to which relearning attenuates the effects of initial learning conditions is referred to as relearning override ). To evaluate a possible explanation of these effects, we formally tested the relearning attenuates decay (RAD) model. The RAD model accurately accounted for relearning potency and relearning override effects (and several other secondary effects). We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of these findings and advocate that successive relearning is an important next frontier for educationally relevant memory research. (PsycINFO Database Record
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?
If the same information was successively relearned three times with mastery over spaced intervals, recall after one week increased to 80%.
“However, if the same information was successively relearned three times (with mastery) over spaced intervals, recall after one week increased to 80% (Cohen's d for the difference = 4.19).”
From The benefits of successive relearning on multiple learning outcomes. (2022) · cites this paper as Rawson et al. (2018)
Participants recalled 20% of learned information one week after a single learning session.
“For example, Rawson, Vaughn, Walsh, & Dunlosky (2018) found that participants recalled 20% of learned information one week after a single learning session.”
From The benefits of successive relearning on multiple learning outcomes. (2022) · cites this paper as Rawson, Vaughn, Walsh, & Dunlosky (2018)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., Walsh, M., & Dunlosky, J.
- Affiliations
- Kent State University (US)
- Northern Kentucky University (US)
- RAND Corporation (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-71
- ISSN
- 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2192
- OpenAlex
- W2793780381
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 1.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- long-term retention, memory retention
- MeSH terms
- Educational Measurement, Humans, Learning, Memory, Models, Psychological, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Students, Time Factors
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