Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect

The testing effect generalizes across ages, materials, and test formats.

“The testing effect is well established, generalizes across ages, materials, and test formats (Carpenter and DeLosh, 2006; Roediger and Smith, 2012; Dulonsky et al., 2013; Pan and Rickard, 2018), and is more beneficial than elaborative encoding (Karpicke and Blunt, 2011).”

Studies examining this question showed that the testing effect was maintained when the test format was changed between training and final test (e.g., from free recall to recognition), or from short-answer questions to multiple-choice questions.

“Studies examining this question showed that the testing effect was maintained when the test format was changed between training and final test (e.g., from free recall to recognition; Carpenter and DeLosh, 2006), or from short-answer questions to multiple-choice questions (Kang et al., 2007; for a review, Pan and Rickard, 2018).”

The positive influence of recall during the learning phase holds even when there is a mismatch in task type (recall during learning and recognition during retrieval).

“This holds even when there is a mismatch in task type (i.e., recall during learning and recognition during retrieval; (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Endres & Renkl, 2015; Rowland, 2014; Stenlund et al., 2016), highlighting the positive influence of recall during the learning phase.”

Tasks requiring a generated response (cued and free recall) consistently yield higher long-term retention.

“This notion can be compared to the DDF/REH in that tasks requiring a generated response (cued and free recall) consistently yield higher long-term retention (Butler & Roediger, 2007; Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Endres & Renkl, 2015; Kang et al., 2007; Stenlund et al., 2016); for reviews, see McDermott (2021) and Rowland (2014).”

The principle aligns with Elaborative Retrieval Hypothesis, which suggests more effortful retrieval of weakly associated pairs improves long-term memory.

“This principle aligns with the Elaborative Retrieval Hypothesis, which suggests that more effortful retrieval of weakly associated pairs improves long-term memory (Carpenter, 2009; Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Endres & Renkl, 2015; Rawson et al., 2015).”

The beneficial effects of retrieval practice have been demonstrated across a variety of materials, including word lists, paired associates, nonverbal materials, face-name pairings, prose passages, science articles, videotaped lectures, and narrated animations.

“The beneficial effects of retrieval practice have been demonstrated across a variety of materials, as reviewed by Dunlosky et al. (2013).”

Tests that are harder and require more retrieval effort produce greater benefits for later memory.

“Moreover, it has been found that the harder the test, and the greater the effort required for retrieval, the greater the benefit to subsequent memory (e.g., Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006;Pyc & Rawson, 2009).”

The testing effect is more robust when test-trials involve more effortful retrieval (e.g., recall vs. recognition), even when the final test is in a different format.

“Supporting this claim, the testing effect is more robust when test-trials involve more effortful retrieval (e.g., recall vs. recognition), even when the final test is in a different format (Carpenter and DeLosh, 2006).”

The testing effect is well established.

“The testing effect is well established, generalizes across ages, materials, and test formats (Carpenter and DeLosh, 2006; Roediger and Smith, 2012; Dulonsky et al., 2013; Pan and Rickard, 2018), and is more beneficial than elaborative encoding (Karpicke and Blunt, 2011).”

There is evidence that such a narrow study-test matching is an unlikely explanation of the testing superiority.

“There is evidence, however, that such a narrow study-test matching is an unlikely explanation of the testing superiority.”

Several studies have directly tested the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis, each finding evidence in support.

“There are several studies that have directly tested the REH, each finding evidence in support of this notion (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Pyc & Rawson, 2009).”

In retrieval learning literature, differences in both task and item difficulty can affect final performance on a memory task.

“In retrieval learning literature, there are differences in how both task (the way in which the learning material is presented; (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Kang et al., 2007; Pyc & Rawson, 2009; Stenlund et al., 2016) and item (the learning material itself; de Lima et al., 2020; Minear et al., 2018; Pyke et al., 2023; Vaughn et al., 2013) difficulty can affect final performance on a memory task.”

Support for the Elaborative Retrieval Hypothesis has been shown in Carpenter & DeLosh (2006) even when controlling for item difficulty, and in Endres & Renkl (2015) where the testing effect disappeared when statistically controlling for mental effort.

“Support for the Elaborative Retrieval Hypothesis has also been shown in a previous study by Carpenter & DeLosh (2006), even when controlling for item difficulty (Experiment 3) and in a more recent study (Endres & Renkl, 2015), where interestingly the authors stated that the testing effect disappeared when statistically controlling for mental effort.”

Carpenter & DeLosh (2006) report evidence consistent with the hypothesis that free recall is a more powerful memory enhancer than recognition.

“The literature on this question is not extensive, but Carpenter & DeLosh (2006) report evidence consistent with the hypothesis that free recall is a more powerful memory enhancer than recognition.”