Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Self-reported use of retrieval practice varies across age and domain

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study strategies that learners utilize impact how much they learn. Practicing retrieval from long-term memory (e.g., practice tests or flashcards) is a particularly effective study strategy that can provide large learning benefits; yet, students rarely recognize the benefits of retrieval practice. Here, we examine whether a sample of middle and high school students report using retrieval practice when studying on their own, why they use it, and whether its use varies by age and learning domain. The results show that most middle and high school students in our sample report using retrieval practice, but students utilize re-reading strategies more. The high school students in our sample report using retrieval practice more than the surveyed middle school students, and this may be driven by differences in their reasoning for using it. Finally, students’ ages and learning domains interact to affect how widely retrieval practice is utilized. Students’ use of retrieval practice grows with age and changes by domain. While more students report using retrieval practice than in prior literature, many students still fail to fully harness the learning benefits that retrieval practice can provide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Students who learned study strategies from their teachers did not freely report more self-testing study strategies than students who did not learn study strategies from their teacher, in both middle school (teacher taught: .24 vs. not teacher taught: .23), Z = 0.11, p = 0.91, and high school (teacher taught: .62 vs. not teacher taught: .56), Z = 0.92, p = 0.36.

References

  • Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the tested effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1063–1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self explanation and self- regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F., & Zeman, B. R. (1983). The development of organizational strategies in children’s recall of familiar information: Using social organization to recall the names of classmates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 6, 341–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasiman, R., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory, 25(6), 784–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high-school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 203–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), handbook of child psychology (4th ed.): Cognitive development (Vol. 3, pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui, D. C., Maddox, G. B., & Balota, D. A. (2013). The roles of working memory and intervening task difficulty in determining the benefits of repetition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0352-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 619–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., Lund, T. J., Coffman, C. R., Armstrong, P. I., Lamm, M. H., & Reason, R. D. (2016). A classroom study on the relationship between student achievement and retrieval- enhanced learning. Educational Psychology Review, 1–23.

  • Clark, D. A., & Svinicki, M. (2015). The effect of retrieval on post-task enjoyment of studying. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 51–67.

  • Cleary, T. J., & Chen, P. P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crede, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, G., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. C. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2018). Metacognitive control of transfer-appropriate processing. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., & Stodolsky, S. (1994). Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond, ed. Review of Research in Education (Vol. 20, pp. 179–221). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

  • Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F. (2000). Building a case for self-regulating as a socially constructed phenomenon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

  • Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 477–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 126–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson-Noel, D., & Winne, P. H. (2003). Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations of students’ studying and achievement. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janes, J. L., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2018). How do students use self-testings across multiple study sessions when preparing for a high-stakes exam? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk-Johnson, A., Gallo, B. M., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2019). Perceiving effort as poor learning: the misinterpreted-effort hypothesis of how experienced effort and perceived learning relate to study strategy choice. Cognitive Psychology, 115.

  • Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17, 493–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhbandner, C., & Emmerdinger, K. J. (2018). Do students really prefer repeated rereading over testing when studying textbooks? A reexamination. Memory, 27(7), 952–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1610177.

  • Kuhn, D. (2000). Theory of mind, metacognition, and reasoning: A life-span perspective. In P. Mitchell & K. J. Riggs (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 301–326). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, G. B., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Self control of when and how much to test face-name pairs in a novel spaced retrieval paradigm: An examination of age-related differences. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19, 620–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.640658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, G. B., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Retrieval practice and spacing effects in young and older adults: An examination of the benefits of desirable difficulty. Memory and Cognition, 43, 770–774. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421/s13421-014-0499-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAndrew, M., Morrow, C. S., Atiyeh, L., & Pierre, G. C. (2016). Dental student study strategies: Are self-testing and scheduling related to academic performance? Journal of Dental Education, 80(5), 542–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyatsu, T., Nguyen, K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2018). Five popular study strategies: Their optimal implementation and pitfalls. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 390–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, N. W., & Peterson, D. J. (2015). Negative and positive testing effects in terms of item- specific and relational information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 859–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., et al. (2007).Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Research, Institute of Education Sciences.

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Brown, D. R., & Weinstein, C.-E. (1994). Student motivation, cognition and learning. Hillsdale: Lawrence-Erlbaurn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect? Memory & Cognition, 41, 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, J. C., Ackerman, B. P., Craik, F. I. M., & Hinchley, J. L. (1982). Aging and metamemory: The roles of relatedness and imagery. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 688–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How effective is example generation for learning declarative concepts? Educational Psychology Review, 28, 649–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rea, C. P., & Modigliani, V. (1985). The effect of expanded versus massed practice on the retention of multiplication facts and spelling lists. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research & Applications, 4(1), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, F., Rivas, M. J., Matsumura, L. H., Warschauer, M., & Sato, B. K. (2018). How do students study in STEM courses? Findings from a light-touch intervention and its relevance for underrepresented students. PLoS One, 13(7), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger III, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 382–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1323–1330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotgans, J., & Schmidt, H. (2009). Examination of the context-specific nature of self-regulated learning. Educational Studies, 35, 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432–1436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. (1998). The development of procedural metamemory in childhood and adolescence. In G. Mazzoni & T. O. Nelson (Eds), Monitoring and control processes in metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.

  • Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between 2 and 20. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Selfregulated learning: From teaching to self- reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. M., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. J., & Craik, E. I. M. (1989). Age differences in predictions and performance on a cued recall task. Psychology and Aging, 4, 131–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1988). Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 258–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: Children’s short-term versus long-term study strategies. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(9), 641–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stodolsky, S. (1988). The subject matters: classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1982). Consistency in learning strategies. Higher Education, 11, 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences in academic studying: Summary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., Bol, L., Warkentin, R. W., Wilson, M., Strage, A., & Rowher, W. D. (1993). Interrelationships among students study activities, self-concept of academic ability, and achievement as a function of characteristics of high-school biology courses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 499–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 743–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 429–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., Fiechter, J. L., & Benjamin, A. S. (2018). The efficacy of learners' testing choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 540–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2000). Assessing active self-directed learning. In R. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 83–101). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderStoep, S. W., Pintrich, P. R., & Fagerlin, A. (1996). Disciplinary differences in self- regulated learning in college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 345–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeeten, J., Lodewijks, H., & Vermunt, J. (1997). Change and stability in learning strategies during the first two years at the university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, march 24–28.

  • Wade, W., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety, and knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 311–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E. (1978). Teaching cognitive elaboration learning strategies. In H. F. O'Neal (Ed.), Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., Zimmerman, S. A., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing learning strategies: The design and development of the LASSI. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 25–40). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 279–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Muis, K. (2001). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, New directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 121–155). Amsterdam: JAI Press Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20(6), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.687052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., & Lemare, L. (1982). The effects of knowledge of criterion task on comprehension and recall in normally achieving and learning disabled children. The Journal of Educational Research, 76(2), 119–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social–cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 299–315). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Arizona, 1430 E. Second St., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Jonathan G. Tullis

  2. Department of Psychology, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN, USA

    Geoffrey B. Maddox

Authors
  1. Jonathan G. Tullis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoffrey B. Maddox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan G. Tullis.

Ethics declarations

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Human participants were treated in accord with APA ethical standards. Students and their guardians signed informed consent before participating in this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

APPENDIX: Study Strategies Survey

APPENDIX: Study Strategies Survey

figure afigure afigure afigure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tullis, J.G., Maddox, G.B. Self-reported use of retrieval practice varies across age and domain. Metacognition Learning 15, 129–154 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09223-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09223-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation