Cited by 82Memory Processes and InfluencesReading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Retrieval-Based Learning: Positive Effects of Retrieval Practice in Elementary School Children

Open access
Karpicke, Jeffrey D., Blunt, Janell R., Smith, Megan A.·2016·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

A wealth of research has demonstrated that practicing retrieval is a powerful way to enhance learning. However, nearly all prior research has examined retrieval practice with college students. Little is known about retrieval practice in children, and even less is known about possible individual differences in retrieval practice. In three experiments, 88 children (mean age 10 years) studied a list of words and either restudied the items or practiced retrieving them. They then took a final free recall test (Experiments 1 and 2) or recognition test (Experiment 3). In all experiments, children showed robust retrieval practice effects. Although a range of individual differences in reading comprehension and processing speed were observed among these children, the benefits of retrieval practice were independent of these factors. The results contribute to the growing body of research supporting the mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice and provide preliminary evidence that practicing retrieval may be an effective learning strategy for children with varying levels of reading comprehension and processing speed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00350

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., & Smith, M. A.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Karpicke, Jeffrey D.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2016-03-11
Volume
7
Pages
350-350
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2319294254
Cited by
82
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute of Education Sciences (R305A110903)
  • National Science Foundation (DRL-1149363, DUE-1245476)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
retrieval practice, elementary school students, individual differences, reading comprehension, processing speed, free recall, recognition memory, restudying, learning strategies

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