Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39379748›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024

Far transfer of retrieval-practice benefits: rule-based learning as the underlying mechanism.

Bertram Opitz, Veit Kubik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bertram OpitzSchool of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. bertram.opitz@mhb-fontane.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6553-0473
Veit KubikDepartment of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Benefits of self-testing for learning have been consistently shown for simple materials such as word lists learned by rote memorization. Considerably less evidence for such benefits exists for complex, more educationally relevant materials and its application to new situations. The present study explores the mechanisms underlying this transfer. To this end, a typical retrieval-practice-effect paradigm was applied to foster the learning of an artificial language. Participants either repeatedly studied grammatically correct exemplar sentences of the artificial language or engaged in a cloze test as the interim test after learning. To assess far transfer, participants in both groups of restudy and retrieval practice engaged in a grammaticality judgment test after a delay of 5 min and 1 week. In addition, participants in both groups completed a final memory test (i.e., a cloze test identical to the initial test) 1 week after learning. In addition to a long-term memory benefit of retrieval practice, results revealed also a retrieval-practice benefit in the far-transfer test after the 1-week delay. The findings further support the view that far transfer is supported by learning the underlying grammatical rules as opposed to memorizing the material. Thus, retrieval practice is also effective for fostering learning of complex materials and, even more importantly, for promoting transfer of learning-a crucial goal in modern educational practices.

Indexed as

Mental RecallPractice, PsychologicalTransfer, PsychologyAdultFemaleHumansLearningMaleYoung AdultArtificial languageFar transferInductive learningRetrieval practiceRule-based learningTesting effect

Identifiers

PMID39379748
PMCPMC11461721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.