Mayrhofer Roland, Kuhbandner Christof, Frischholz Katja
Department of Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2023 Dec 21;14:1258359. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258359. eCollection 2023.
Several previous studies appear to have demonstrated that studying with retrieval practice produces more learning than studying with concept mapping, a finding based on which an extended use of retrieval practice in educational practice was recommended. However, a closer examination of the methods used in these previous studies reveals a crucial confounding variable: Whereas participants in the concept mapping conditions performed a concept mapping task without any subsequent memorizing of the learning material, participants in the retrieval practice conditions performed not only retrieval practice but also an additional memorization task, which doubled the total memorization time. The present preregistered study examined whether the advantage observed in the retrieval practice condition over the concept mapping condition in previous studies was actually driven by additional memorization rather than by retrieval practice. While we replicated the previous finding that retrieval practice in combination with additional memorizing produces more learning than concept mapping without additional memorizing, this advantage of retrieval practice over concept mapping vanished when participants in the concept mapping condition, too, memorized the learning material after having created a concept map. These findings demonstrate that the assumed advantage of retrieval practice over concept mapping in fact represents a methodological artifact. Besides serving as a reminder of the importance of a solid methodology, the present study also illustrates the importance of using of an adequate terminology. Depicting a learning strategy condition as "retrieval practice" when the condition actually encompasses not only retrieval practice but also additional memorizing obfuscates the possibility that observed memory advantages may not be fueled by retrieval practice, i.e., the learning strategy as such. We conclude by giving an outlook on the ramifications of our findings for cognitive and educational psychology.
先前的几项研究似乎已经表明，采用检索练习的方式进行学习比使用概念图学习能产生更多的学习成果，基于这一发现，有人建议在教育实践中扩大检索练习的应用。然而，仔细审视这些先前研究中所使用的方法会发现一个关键的混淆变量：在概念图条件下的参与者执行概念图任务后没有对学习材料进行任何后续记忆，而在检索练习条件下的参与者不仅进行了检索练习，还额外执行了一项记忆任务，这使得总记忆时间增加了一倍。本项预先注册的研究考察了先前研究中在检索练习条件下相对于概念图条件所观察到的优势实际上是否是由额外的记忆而非检索练习驱动的。虽然我们重复了先前的发现，即检索练习与额外记忆相结合比没有额外记忆的概念图能产生更多的学习成果，但当概念图条件下的参与者在创建概念图后也记忆学习材料时，检索练习相对于概念图的这一优势就消失了。这些发现表明，检索练习相对于概念图的假定优势实际上是一种方法上的人为现象。除了提醒人们扎实的方法学的重要性之外，本研究还说明了使用恰当术语的重要性。当一种学习策略条件实际上不仅包括检索练习还包括额外记忆时，将其描述为“检索练习”会模糊这样一种可能性，即观察到的记忆优势可能并非由检索练习本身，即学习策略所推动。我们最后展望了我们的发现对认知心理学和教育心理学的影响。
