Planning Education for Long-Term Retention: The Cognitive Science and Implementation of Retrieval Practice
Open accessAbstract
Educational systems are rarely designed for long-term retention of information. Strong evidence has emerged from cognitive psychology and applied education studies that repeated retrieval of information significantly improves retention compared to repeated studying. This effect likely emerges from the processes of memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Consolidation and reconsolidation are the means by which memories are organized into associational networks or schemas that are created and recreated as memories are formed and recalled. As educators implement retrieval practice, they should consider how various test formats lead to different degrees of schema activation. Repeated acts of retrieval provide opportunities for schemas to be updated and strengthened. Spacing of retrieval allows more consolidated schemas to be reactivated. Feedback provides metacognitive monitoring to ensure retrieval accuracy and can lead to shifts from ineffective to effective retrieval strategies. By using the principles of retrieval practice, educators can improve the likelihood that learners will retain information for longer periods of time.
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?
Taking a retrieval test improves long-term retention more than restudying.
“Larsen [31] and Ebersbach et al., [14] show that taking a retrieval test improves long-term retention more than restudying.”
From Multinational machine learning investigation of whether generative AI interactions augment or substitute cognitive skills and study efficiency in global higher education (2026) · cites this paper as Larsen [31]
Effortful recall strengthens durable memory structure better than passive recognition.
“The studies concluded that effortful recall strengthens durable memory structure better than passive recognition.”
From Multinational machine learning investigation of whether generative AI interactions augment or substitute cognitive skills and study efficiency in global higher education (2026) · cites this paper as Larsen [31]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 66 · Cited by 53
- Authors
- Larsen, D.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Larsen, Douglas
- ORCID
- Larsen, Douglas
- Venue
- Seminars in Neurology
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 449-456
- ISSN
- 0271-8235 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-9021
- OpenAlex
- W2888571438
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Seminars in Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- retrieval practice, long-term retention, memory consolidation, memory reconsolidation, schema activation, spacing effect, metacognitive monitoring, feedback, test format, cognitive science of learning, educational design
- MeSH terms
- Memory Consolidation, Education, Medical, Humans, Neurology, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Cognitive Science
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