Although substantial evidence indicates that spacing repeated study events with intervening material generally enhances memory performance relative to massing study events, the mechanism underlying this benefit is less clear. Two experiments examined the role of reminding difficulty during the acquisition of material in modulating final memory performance for spaced repetitions utilizing recognition (Experiment 1) and recall tests (Experiment 2). Specifically, participants studied a list of words presented one or two times separated by one or five items. On each trial participants reported whether the item had been previously presented (i.e., repetition detection judgment), and the response latency served as a proxy for reminding difficulty such that longer response latencies reflected more difficult reminding. A third experiment extended this paradigm with the inclusion of a massed condition and novel lag conditions (three and ten items). Results revealed significant lag effects in final test performance across experiments despite comparable repetition detection difficulty between lag conditions during acquisition. Moreover, results from within-participant point-biserial analyses and mediation analyses converged on overall performance measures in suggesting that repetition detection difficulty failed to modulate final test performance in the current paradigm. Discussion considers the implications of the current results for mechanisms proposed to underlie the benefits of spaced study and spaced retrieval practice.

Judgments of learning (JOL) made after a delay more accurately predict subsequent recall than JOLs made immediately after learning. One explanation is that delayed JOLs involve retrieving information about the target item from secondary memory, whereas immediate JOLs involve retrieval from primary memory. One view of working memory claims that information in primary memory is displaced to secondary memory when attention is shifted to a secondary task. Thus, immediate JOLs might be as accurate as delayed JOLs if an intervening task displaces the target item from primary memory, requiring retrieval from secondary memory, prior to making the JOL. In four experiments, participants saw related word-pairs and made JOLs predicting later recall of the item. In Experiment 1, delayed JOLs were more accurate than JOLs made shortly after learning, regardless of whether a secondary task intervened between learning and JOL. In Experiments 2-4, the secondary task demands increased and JOLs made shortly after learning with an intervening task were just as accurate as delayed JOLs, and both were more accurate than immediate JOLs with no intervening task (Experiment 4). These results are consistent with a retrieval-based account of JOLs, and demonstrate that the "delayed-JOL effect" can be obtained without a long delay.

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some - but not all of - the spacing effect on final performance.

The production effect, the memorial benefit for information read aloud versus silently, has been touted as a simple memory improvement tool. The current experiments were designed to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of production using a free recall paradigm. Results extend beyond prior work showing a production effect only when production is manipulated within subject, not between, using a free recall paradigm. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the production effect is primarily driven by decreased memory for items read silently, not increased memory for items read aloud.

Research on metacognitive judgment accuracy during retrieval practice has increased in recent years. However, prior work had not systematically evaluated item-level judgment accuracy and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy in a criterion-learning paradigm (in which items are practiced until correctly recalled during encoding). Understanding these relationships during criterion learning has important theoretical implications for self-regulated learning frameworks, and also has applied implications for student learning: If the factors that influence metacognitive judgments are not predictive of subsequent test performance, students may make poor decisions during self-regulated learning. In the present experiments, participants engaged in test-restudy practice until items were recalled correctly. Once a given item reached criterion, participants made an immediate or delayed judgment of learning (JOL) for the item. A final cued-recall test occurred 30 min later. We examined judgment accuracy (the relationship between JOLs and test performance) and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy by evaluating cue utilization (the relationship between cues and JOLs) and cue diagnosticity (the relationship between cues and test performance). Immediate JOLs were only modestly related to subsequent test performance, and further analyses revealed that the cues related to JOLs were only weakly predictive of test accuracy. However, delaying JOLs improved both the accuracy of the JOLs and the diagnosticity of the cues that influenced judgments.

Although the benefits of spaced retrieval for long-term retention are well established, the majority of this work has involved spacing over relatively short intervals (on the order of seconds or minutes). In the present experiments, we evaluated the effectiveness of spaced retrieval across relatively short intervals (within a single session), as compared to longer intervals (between sessions spaced a day apart), for long-term retention (i.e., one day or one week). Across a series of seven experiments, participants (N = 536) learned paired associates to a criterion of 70 % accuracy and then received one test–feedback trial for each item. The test–feedback trial occurred within 10 min of reaching criterion (short lag) or one day later (long lag). Then, a final test occurred one day (Exps. 1–3) or one week (Exps. 4 and 5) after the test–feedback trial. Across the different materials and methods in Experiments 1–3, we found little benefit for the long-lag relative to the short-lag schedule in final recall performance—that is, no lag effect—but large effects on the retention of information from the test–feedback to the final test phase. The results from the experiments with the one-week retention interval (Exps. 4 and 5) indicated a benefit of the long-lag schedule on final recall performance (a lag effect), as well as on retention. This research shows that even when the benefits of lag are eliminated at a (relatively long) one-day retention interval, the lag effect reemerges after a one-week retention interval. The results are interpreted within an extension of the bifurcation model to the spacing effect.

Research has consistently shown memory is enhanced when learning combines test trials with study trials compared with study trials alone (i.e., testing effect). However, the majority of work on testing effects has involved undergraduate students. In the current experiment, the authors examined testing effects in 2 groups of elementary school children. First and 3rd graders learned 1 list of words in a test-plus-restudy condition and a 2nd list of words in a restudy condition. In addition to examining the benefits of testing in children, the authors examined possible explanations for the memorial benefits of testing that have received initial support in adult populations (Zaromb & Roediger, 2010). Results showed that the benefits of testing extend to elementary school children and that testing enhanced item-specific processing but not relational processing. Third graders were also aware of the memorial benefits of testing, whereas 1st graders were not. Most important, even 1st graders benefit from testing, in part because testing allows them to capitalize on their ability to process item-specific information.

A wealth of previous research has established that retrieval practice promotes memory, particularly when retrieval is successful. Although successful retrieval promotes memory, it remains unclear whether successful retrieval promotes memory equally well for items of varying difficulty. Will easy items still outperform difficult items on a final test if all items have been correctly recalled equal numbers of times during practice? In two experiments, normatively difficult and easy Lithuanian–English word pairs were learned via test–restudy practice until each item had been correctly recalled a preassigned number of times (from 1 to 11 correct recalls). Despite equating the numbers of successful recalls during practice, performance on a delayed final cued-recall test was lower for difficult than for easy items. Experiment 2 was designed to diagnose whether the disadvantage for difficult items was due to deficits in cue memory, target memory, and/or associative memory. The results revealed a disadvantage for the difficult versus the easy items only on the associative recognition test, with no differences on cue recognition, and even an advantage on target recognition. Although successful retrieval enhanced memory for both difficult and easy items, equating retrieval success during practice did not eliminate normative item difficulty differences.

The need to improve the educational system has never been greater. People in congress and business argue for expensive technological applications to improve education despite a lack of empirical evidence for their efficacy. We argue that one inexpensive avenue for improving education has been largely ignored. Cognitive and educational psychologists have identified strategies that greatly improve learning and retention of information, and yet these techniques are not generally applied in education nor taught in education schools. In fact, teachers often use instructional practices known to be wrong (i.e., massing rather than interleaving examples to explain a topic). We identify three general principles that are inexpensive to implement and have been shown in both laboratory and field experiments to improve learning: (1) distribution (spacing and interleaving) of practice in learning facts and skills; (2) retrieval practice (via self testing) for durable learning; and (3) explanatory questioning (elaborative interrogation and self-explanation) as a study strategy. We describe each technique, provide supporting evidence, and discuss classroom applications. Each principle can be applied to most subject matters from kindergarten to higher education. Applying findings from cognitive psychology to classroom instruction is no panacea for educational problems, but it represents one helpful and inexpensive strategy.

Although successful retrieval practice is beneficial for memory, various factors (e.g., lag and criterion level) moderate this benefit. Accordingly, the efficacy of retrieval practice depends on how students use retrieval practice during learning, which in turn depends on accurate metacognitive monitoring. The present experiments evaluated the extent to which judgments of learning (JOLs) made after correct responses are sensitive to factors (i.e., lag and criterion level) that moderate retrieval practice effects, as well as which cues influence JOLs under these conditions. Participants completed retrieval practice for word pairs with either short or long lags between practice trials until items were correctly recalled 1, 3, 6, or 9 times. After the criterion trial for an item, participants judged the likelihood of recalling that item on the final test 1 week later. JOLs showed correct directional sensitivity to criterion level, with both final test performance and JOLs increasing as criterion level increased. However, JOLs showed incorrect directional sensitivity to lag, with greater performance but lower JOLs for longer versus shorter lags. Additionally, results indicated that retrieval fluency and metacognitive beliefs about criterion level--but not lag--influenced JOLs.

Previous survey research has documented students' use of self-regulated study strategies, with a particular interest in self-testing. These surveys indicate that students frequently use flashcards to self-test and that self-testing is primarily used as a way to monitor learning. Whereas previous surveys provide information about whether and why students self-test, they provide minimal information about how and when students choose to self-test. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current survey was to explore how and when students engage in self-testing. We surveyed 374 undergraduates about the amount of practice and the timing of practice, two factors that strongly affect the efficacy of self-testing. Results indicate that students understand the benefits of practising to higher criterion levels (amount of practice) but do not typically implement or understand the benefits of practising with longer lags (timing of practice). We discuss practical implications for supporting more successful student learning.

Although the memorial benefits of testing are well established empirically, the mechanisms underlying this benefit are not well understood. The authors evaluated the mediator shift hypothesis, which states that test-restudy practice is beneficial for memory because retrieval failures during practice allow individuals to evaluate the effectiveness of mediators and to shift from less effective to more effective mediators. Across a series of experiments, participants used a keyword encoding strategy to learn word pairs with test-restudy practice or restudy only. Robust testing effects were obtained in all experiments, and results supported predictions of the mediator shift hypothesis. First, a greater proportion of keyword shifts occurred during test-restudy practice versus restudy practice. Second, a greater proportion of keyword shifts occurred after retrieval failure trials versus retrieval success trials during test-restudy practice. Third, a greater proportion of keywords were recalled on a final keyword recall test after test-restudy versus restudy practice.

The need to improve the educational system has never been greater. People in congress and business argue for expensive technological applications to improve education despite a lack of empirical evidence for their efficacy. We argue that one inexpensive avenue for improving education has been largely ignored. Cognitive and educational psychologists have identified strategies that greatly improve learning and retention of information, and yet these techniques are not generally applied in education nor taught in education schools. In fact, teachers often use instructional practices known to be wrong (i.e., massing rather than interleaving examples to explain a topic). We identify three general principles that are inexpensive to implement and have been shown in both laboratory and field experiments to improve learning: (1) distribution (spacing and interleaving) of practice in learning facts and skills; (2) retrieval practice (via self testing) for durable learning; and (3) explanatory questioning (elaborative interrogation and self-explanation) as a study strategy. We describe each technique, provide supporting evidence, and discuss classroom applications. Each principle can be applied to most subject matters from kindergarten to higher education. Applying findings from cognitive psychology to classroom instruction is no panacea for educational problems, but it represents one helpful and inexpensive strategy. pplie © 2012 Society for A A front-page article in the Sunday New York Times (Gabriel & ichtel, October 11, 2011) examined the role of technology in the lassroom. Many products have been offered to improve education ith an estimated annual cost of $2.2 billion. Yet a survey from the epartment of Education in 2010 showed either no or only modst gains from expensive educational products compared to similar lasses that used standard textbooks. Of course, new educational roducts are often not sold on the basis of solid research results howing their effectiveness, but on marketing, personal testimonils, small case studies and the like. The one guaranteed outcome is arge profits for the companies that make the products; educational ains for students are more doubtful. Nonetheless, some companies Intel) and some in the U.S. Congress argue that one goal should be o put a computer in every child’s hands in the U.S. That step would e enormously costly. Would children be able to successfully use he computers to improve educational achievement? What studies how this to be the case? We suggest large-scale trial experiments hould be undertaken before taking such expensive steps to show heir effectiveness. Much more research is needed to show how ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, CB 1125, Washington Uniersity, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, United States. el.: +1 314 935 4307; fax: +1 314 935 7588. E-mail address: Roediger@wustl.edu (H.L. Roediger III). 211-3681/$ – see front matter © 2012 Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cog ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.002 d Research in Memory and Cognition. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights