↓ Skip to main content

Retrieval practice enhances new learning: the forward effect of testing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
290 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retrieval practice enhances new learning: the forward effect of testing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00286
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernhard Pastötter, Karl-Heinz T. Bäuml

Abstract

In the last couple of years, there has been a dramatic increase in laboratory research examining the benefits of recall testing on long-term learning and retention. This work was largely on the backward effect of testing, which shows that retrieval practice on previously studied information, compared to restudy of the same material, renders the information more likely to be remembered in the future. Going beyond this prominent work, more recent laboratory research provided evidence that there is also a forward effect of testing, which shows that recall testing of previously studied information can enhance learning of subsequently presented new information. Here, we provide a review of research on this forward effect of testing. The review shows that the effect is a well replicated phenomenon in laboratory studies that has been observed for both veridical information and misinformation. In particular, the review demonstrates that the effect may be applied to educational and clinical settings, enhancing learning in students and reducing memory deficits in clinical populations. The review discusses current theoretical explanations of the forward effect of testing and provides suggestions for future research directions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 286 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 56 19%
Student > Master 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 48 17%
Unknown 79 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 102 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 8%
Social Sciences 18 6%
Neuroscience 18 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 90 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,327,207
of 25,045,181 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,752
of 33,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,012
of 232,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#36
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,045,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.