Effects of successive relearning on recall: Does relearning override the effects of initial learning criterion?

Abstract

Retrieval practice improves memory for many kinds of materials, and numerous factors moderate the benefits of retrieval practice, including the amount of successful retrieval practice (referred to as the learning criterion). In general, the benefits of retrieval practice are greater with more than with less successful retrieval practice; however, learning items to a higher (vs. lower) criterion requires more time and effort. If students plan on relearning material in a subsequent study session, does the benefit of learning to a higher criterion during an initial session persist? In Session 1, participants studied and successfully recalled Swahili-English word pairs one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven times. In subsequent sessions, all of the pairs were relearned to a criterion of one correct recall at one-week intervals across four or five successive relearning sessions. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that the substantial benefits of learning to a higher initial criterion during the first session do not persist across relearning sessions. This relearning-override effect was also demonstrated in Experiment 2 after a one-month retention interval. The implications of relearning-override effects are important for theory and for education. For theories of test-enhanced learning, they support the predictions of one theory and appear inconsistent with the predictions of another. For education, if relearning is to occur, using extra time to learn to a higher initial learning criterion is not efficient. Instead, students should devote their time to subsequent spaced relearning sessions, which produce substantial gains in recall performance.

Successive relearning improves performance on a high‐stakes exam in a difficult biopsychology course

“…For instance, in one condition in which relearning sessions were spaced at a 56‐day interval, more than 75% of the items were recalled after a 1‐year delay, and more than 60% of them were still retained after a 5‐year delay (collapsed across the number of relearning sessions). Other investigations of successive relearning have yielded similarly impressive levels of final memory performance (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick & Hall, 2005; Rawson, Dunlosky, & Sciartelli, 2013; Pyc & Rawson, 2011; Rawson & Dunlosky, 2011, 2013; Rawson et al, 2018; Vaughn, Dunlosky, & Rawson, 2016).…”

“…Alternatively, students may overshoot by overlearning items within a single session (i.e., continuing to practice items after correct recall has been achieved) 1 . In such cases, going to a higher criterion of learning within a single session would likely be inefficient, because the additional correct retrieval attempts typically do not further enhance retention (Rawson et al, 2018; Vaughn et al, 2016). And, as described further below, research on successive relearning in authentic classroom contexts is limited, but the few available laboratory studies on successive relearning demonstrate how powerful and long‐lasting its effects could be for promoting student learning.…”

“…Moreover, the majority of successive‐relearning studies have been conducted in controlled laboratory settings using simple materials. In fact, out of the nine relevant studies conducted to date, six of them used foreign language vocabulary or some form of paired associate (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick & Hall, 2005; Bahrick et al, 1993; Pyc & Rawson, 2011; Rawson et al, 2018; Vaughn et al, 2016), whereas only three used materials more representative of the types of content students might be expected to learn in their non‐language courses (key‐term definitions; Rawson & Dunlosky, 2011, 2013; Rawson et al, 2013). Given these limitations, an open question is whether the benefits of successive relearning would occur when implemented in an authentic classroom setting, where the stakes tend to be higher and the students may be more motivated to learn the material.…”

Evaluating the Theoretic Adequacy and Applied Potential of Computational Models of the Spacing Effect

“…Spacing during the first session had a substantial impact on recall at the start of the second session, but the impact was reduced when the material was restudied and re-learned. Additional studies have confirmed that successive re-learning gradually attenuates effects of initial learning conditions such as spacing and criterion level (Rawson, Vaughn, Walsh, & Dunlosky, in press;Vaughn, Dunlosky, & Rawson, 2016). This has been called the re-learning override effect.…”

Testing the primary and convergent retrieval model of recall: Recall practice produces faster recall success but also faster recall failure

“…Latencies may be particularly informative in the case of a bifurcated distribution, allowing assessment of memory strength for the upper portion of the distribution (i.e., the items that were recalled on the practice test), considering that accuracy is nearly perfect for these items on the final test. Several studies have examined recall latency as a measurement tool to index retrieval effort during test practice (Pyc & Rawson, 2009;Vaughn, Dunlosky, & Rawson, 2016). A few others examined final recall latency following recall practice, finding that participants are faster to recall items after recall practice with free recall (Lehman, Smith, & Karpicke, 2014) and with cued recall (van den Broek, Segers, Takashima, & Verhoeven, 2014; also see Keresztes, Kaiser, Kovács, & Racsmány, 2014;van den Broek, Takashima, Segers, Fernández, & Verhoeven, 2013).…”