Review

Psychological Reports
2020, Vol. 123(6) 2085–2100
Retrieval Practice ! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Promotes Pictorial sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033294119856553
Learning in Children journals.sagepub.com/home/prx

Aged Six to Seven Years

Xiaofeng Ma , Tiantian Li,

Kuni Duzi, Zeng yan Li, and
Xifeng Ma
School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University,
Lanzhou, China

Yanru Li
Department of Education, University of York,
York, England

Ai-Bao Zhou
School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University,
Lanzhou, China

Abstract
Little is known about “retrieval practice” learning strategies in early childhood, and very
few studies have tracked them over long intervals. This study explored the promotion of
retrieval practices in six- and seven-year-old children’s memories of pictures at different
time intervals. One hundred and four first-grade students were asked to remember the
contents of 15 pictures in four retrieval practice conditions: with feedback, with elab-
oration, retrieval practice without feedback, and repetitive learning. Recognition was
tested after 5-minute, one-week, and one-month intervals after completion of the study.
The results indicate that retrieval with feedback promotes memory more effectively
than elaboration. Scores in the retrieval practice with feedback group were higher than
those in the elaboration group at all three delay intervals, and the advantage of retrieval
without feedback may increase at longer intervals. For example, the hit rates in the

Corresponding Author:
Xiaofeng Ma, School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China.
Email: psymaxiaofeng@126.com
2086 Psychological Reports 123(6)

retrieval practice without feedback group were higher than those in the repetitive
learning group after one month, but no significant differences were found after 5
minutes or one week. The findings provide preliminary evidence that practicing retrieval
strategies may be efficient in early elementary education.

Keywords
Children, elaboration, repetitive learning, retrieval practice

Introduction
Retrieval practice (i.e., testing) is a necessary component of educational activ-
ities. Students may determine for themselves whether they have progressed in
their learning and their level of understanding, allowing them to structure future
learning accordingly. Hence, retrieval practice has been widely regarded as a
method of assessing students’ knowledge levels. However, Tulving (1967) found
that retrieval practice promotes free recall. He noted that learning occurs not
only in encoding, but that retrieval is itself a learning process and may improve
students’ performance in delayed tests. Tulving’s research on the effect of
retrieval practice attracted the interest of other researchers who replicated the
effect of retrieval practice using a wide range of verbal materials, including word
lists (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006), face-name pairings (Carpenter & DeLosh,
2005), paired-associate vocabulary (Carpenter, 2009), foreign language vocabu-
lary (Finn & Roediger, 2011; Pyc & Rawson, 2010), general knowledge (Kornell,
Hays, & Bjork, 2009), text passages (Butler, 2010; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a),
and fictional maps (Rohrer, Taylor, & Sholar, 2010).
Prior research on retrieval practice has focused primarily on adults. Few
studies have examined elementary school-aged children, especially those in
early childhood. However, the memories of young children have distinct devel-
opmental characteristics. First, most previous research indicated that changes in
intentional memory processing could be expected within the developmental span
of five to eight years (Mitchell, 1993). Second, there is general agreement among
researchers that episodic memory abilities continue to improve between the ages
of two and six years (Ghetti & Bauer, 2012). From the age of six years, and
continuing through elementary school, episodic memory strengthens (Raj &
Bell, 2010). Third, Foley and Johnson (1985) found that, when compared to
nine-year-old children and adults, six-year-old children were less able to dis-
criminate self-generated memories but performed equally with adults in external
and internal–external source monitoring conditions. Improvements in source
monitoring performance have been observed between four and six years of
age (Drummey & Newcombe, 2002). Based on this, a fundamental question is
whether retrieval practice is effective for young children.
Ma et al. 2087

The earliest research that studied retrieval practice in children was Gates (see
Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b, for discussion of Gates’s research). He examined
students in first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth grades. His experimental
materials were short meaningful biographies and meaningless syllables. Gates
observed the effects of retrieval practice among students of various grades and
under various conditions; however, the first-grade students using meaningless
syllables did not exhibit any retrieval practice effect. In 1939, Spitzer used bio-
graphical facts to examine sixth-grade students in elementary schools and found
test effects (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b, for discussion of Spitzer, 1939).
Later, numerous studies have successively shown that recalled information from
memory could help elementary school-aged children remember a diverse range
of materials, including stories (Petros & Hoving, 1980), games (Baker-Ward,
Hess, & Flannagan, 1990), fictional maps (Rohrer et al., 2010), fact sheets
(Ritchie, Della, & Mcintosh, 2013), vocabulary (Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen,
Tabbers, & Zwaan, 2014), word lists (Karpicke, Blunt, & Smith, 2016), and
multiple-choice tests (Marsh, Fazio, & Goswick, 2012).
Although the research examined the retrieval practice effects for primary
school children, they had the following limitations. First, most studies focused
on children in third grade and above (Karpicke et al., 2016; Karpicke, Blunt,
Smith, & Karpicke, 2014; Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen, & Tabbers, 2014;
Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen, Tabbers, & Zwaan, 2014). This may be because
memory from the third grade forward matures constantly. As children grow
older, their recollection abilities gradually improve. Ghetti and Angelini (2008)
measured 6-, 8-, 10-, 14-, and 18-year-old children’s recollection abilities. They
found that recollection and familiarity both improved in relationship with their
ages. In addition, the recollection abilities of children aged 10 and older were
better than those of children aged six and eight years. Also, the individual’s ability
to form temporal associations increased rapidly between 9 and 10 years old
(Bérengère et al., 2013). However, as stated earlier, it is generally believed that
by the age of four years, children have an episodic memory system in place, and
from the age of six years that episodic memory strengthens (Raj & Bell, 2010). As
children’s recall ability continues to develop throughout their school years, child-
ren’s source monitoring and binding abilities also demonstrate improvement
(Drummey & Newcombe, 2002). We therefore predicted that, in early childhood,
retrieval practice as a cognitive strategy can improve children’s memory retention.
Second, most studies used repetition as the control group, whereas less research
has been done with elaboration as the control group. Goossens, Camp,
Verkoeijen, Tabbers, and Zwaan (2014) used “elaboration restudy” as a control
group and found that on fill-in-the-blank tests after one week, school-aged chil-
dren (nine years), in the retrieval practice condition, outperformed those in the
elaboration restudy condition, yet the research result was under the feedback of
retrieval practice. Karpicke, Lehman, and Aue (2014) found that observing the
mnemonic effect of retrieval must meet certain standards, one of which is that
2088 Psychological Reports 123(6)

retrieval practice conditions need to examine retrieval without feedback or restu-

dying. Any advantage may actually come from the restudy trials rather than the
act of retrieval when retrieval conditions include restudy (Grimaldi & Karpicke,
2012). Therefore, we need to explore whether retrieval practice without feedback
outperformed elaboration. In addition, many studies showed that unconscious
memory is already functional during early preschool years, and that it tends to
remain intact well into late adulthood (Anooshian, 1997). Newman (1990) uses
Istomina’s (1975) paradigm to compare the memorizing effect for children aged
four and five years by conscious retrieval and unconscious memorization by
means of playing games. He found that for children of this age-group, playing
games had a better memory effect than conscious retrieval. Parkin (1993) sug-
gested that implicit memory develops prior to explicit memory and is fully func-
tional by the age of three years. Thus, we predicted that the retrieval practice with
feedback for children aged six to seven years is better than elaboration, but that
the retrieval practice without feedback is less effective than elaboration.
Third, previous research has focused solely on optimizing performance on a
single final test. In most real-world learning scenarios, the learned material
should be accessible over a long period of time, and the paradigm of a training
period followed by a single test may be irrelevant (Kang, Lindsey, Mozer, &
Pashler, 2014). In addition, presumably for reasons of convenience, most dis-
tributed practice studies have used brief retention intervals, usually on the order
of 5 minutes. Few data speak to retention overnight, much less over weeks, or
months. Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, and Rohrer (2006) reviewed 14 studies
that compared the very short (less than 3 hours) and long (one day or more)
gaps with test delays. They found in each study that a one or more day gap was
superior to a very short gap. Based on these two reasons, we tracked the retriev-
al practice at three different retention intervals and predicted that retrieval prac-
tice effects could be expected at the longer interval.
In sum, this study hypothesized that retrieval practice with feedback was
more likely to improve children’s memory retention than other learning con-
ditions. Additionally, we wanted to find whether the effect would be different
with the expansion of the time intervals. Therefore, we set up a longer delay test
(one month) to compare with 5-minute and weekly intervals to examine retrieval
practice effects with the presence of feedback by comparing this condition
against elaboration and repetitive learning.

Method
Participants
Participants were 104 first-grade students attending No. 1 elementary school in
China (48 boys, 56 girls); average age was 6.68 years (standard deviation (SD) ¼
0.47). All participants’ vision was normal or corrected to normal. No participants
Ma et al. 2089

had participated in similar experiments previously; each participant received a gift

following the experiment, such as a pencil, eraser, or notebook, and thanked them
for their participation. Data from one participant were excluded due to the failure
to complete the final test at one-month interval; the rest of the subjects finished
the final test at different intervals. This study has been examined by the Ethical
Committee of the Research Institute and obtained the written informed consent
of the parents.

Materials
1. Learning materials: 15 pictures of the three background (kitchen, garden, or
bedroom), five common objects were related to each background. In the
kitchen background, it is the pot, the bowl, the detergent, the tap, and the
towel; in the garden background, it is the dog, the people, the butterfly,
the dustbin, and the bench; in the bedroom background, it is the bookshelf,
the alarm clock, the desk lamp, the toy, and the slippers. Fifteen pictures
correspond to 15 nouns that the range of word frequency is from 50 per
million to 20 per ten thousand.
2. Testing materials: 15 target pictures of objects and 15 new pictures of objects.
The new images are related to three backgrounds, five in each background.
And 15 new pictures correspond to fifteen nouns that the range of word
frequency is from 50 per million to 20 per ten thousand. In addition, 30
first-grade students were asked to rate their familiarity with the 30 pictures
using a five-point scale. They indicated how familiar they thought the picture
was (1 ¼ most unfamiliar, 5 ¼ most familiar). Familiarity was not significantly
in target pictures (M ¼ 3.93, SD ¼ 0.80) versus new pictures (M ¼ 3.72,
SD ¼ 0.59) students, t(28) ¼ 1.326, d ¼ 0.298, p > 0.05.

Design
A 4 (learning conditions: retrieval practice with feedback, retrieval practice
without feedback, elaboration, and repetitive learning)  3 (testing intervals:
5 minutes, one week, and one month) mixed experimental design was used,
learning conditions is between-subjects variable and testing intervals is within-
subjects variable. Memory retention of learning materials was the depen-
dent variable.

Procedure
Experiment programmer was compiled by E-prime and presented in computers,
and subjects were tested separately. Participants were randomly divided among
the four practice conditions; each group contained 20 participants. Participants
underwent a learning stage and a final test stage; each group studied under one
condition and took three final tests.
2090 Psychological Reports 123(6)

Learning stage. Participants used one learning strategy (retrieval practice with
feedback, retrieval practice without feedback, elaboration, or repetitive learn-
ing) to learn 15 items related to three backgrounds (kitchen, bedroom, and
garden). Five pictures of objects in each background were presented. They
were told that they would be learning pictures during four consecutive periods.
Participants in the retrieval practice with feedback group studied each picture
for 5 seconds and were subsequently allowed 4 seconds to recall the picture and
gave feedback in 1 second; the feedback here refers to showing the children the
pictures they learned again. Then, study picture again and recall the picture and
gave feedback. Participants in the retrieval practice without feedback group
studied each picture for 5 seconds and then took three consecutive recall tests;
they were allowed 5 seconds to recall the picture each time. Participants in the
repetitive learning group studied each picture four times; each study period
lasted 5 seconds. Participants in the elaboration group were told they were
playing a game, they used a computer mouse to drag objects and simultaneously
create a short story in order to learn the picture, and they were allowed 100 sec-
onds to learn the five objects in each picture. All times were monitored using a
stopwatch; all four groups were allowed the same total learning time; the learn-
ing stage of the experiment was 5 minutes in duration.

Testing stage. Participants took final tests after studying the pictures. The
intervals from learning to testing were 5 minutes (immediate test) and one
week or one month (delayed test). In the final tests, 15 target pictures (i.e.,
pictures the participants had studied) and 15 novel pictures were randomly
presented to the participants; participants were instructed to identify the
target pictures.

Statistical analysis
Subsequent to the final tests, data were analyzed using SPSS v.16.0.

Results
Scores on the final tests were separately calculated by assistant. The results
about memory performance are reported separately for hits and false alarms.
Hit rates present correct recognition rates in each of the four groups in the final
tests at delay intervals of 5 minutes, one week, and one month. The false alarm
rates refer to the “yes” reported on the recognition test for previously unlearned
material, indicating confusion about the learning material. In the sections below,
we report the results from repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on
the hit rates and false alarm rates.
Ma et al. 2091

Memory performance: Hit rates

Final hit rates of all learning strategies at different delay intervals are graphed in
Figure 1. To simplify our analyses, we conducted a 4  3 analysis of repeated-
measures ANOVA with the between-subjects factors of learning conditions
(elaboration, retrieval practice with feedback, retrieval practice without feed-
back, and repetitive learning) and testing intervals (5 minutes, one week, and
one month) as a within-subjects factor. This revealed a significant main effect of
testing interval, F(2, 200) ¼317.596, p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.761, 95% confidence inter-
val (CI) (0.70, 0.80); the main effect of groups was significant, F(3, 100) ¼34.141,
p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.506, 95% CI (0.36,0.60). Additionally, the interaction between
testing interval and learning strategy was significant, F(6, 200) ¼ 16.014,
p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.325, 95% CI (0.21, 0.40).
Simple effect analysis indicated a significant difference between the accuracy
of the various learning strategies in the immediate test, F(3, 100) ¼ 5.863,
g2p ¼ 0.150, p < 0.01, 95% CI (0.90, 0.93). Tukey’s honestly significant difference
(HSD) post hoc tests revealed that scores in the retrieval practice with feedback
group (M ¼ 0.961, SD ¼ 0.050) were significantly higher than in the elaboration
group (M ¼ 0.905, SD ¼ 0.094), p ¼ 0.028, d ¼ 0.348, 95% CI (0.00, 0.11),
retrieval practice without feedback group (M ¼ 0.887, SD ¼ 0.064), p ¼ 0.002,
d ¼ 0.542, 95% CI (0.02, 0.13), and repetitive learning group (M ¼ 0.892,
SD ¼ 0.070), p ¼ 0.004, d ¼ 0.493, 95% CI (0.02, 0.12). In other words, com-
pared with other learning strategies, the retrieval practice with feedback can
promote the retention of memory in children aged six to seven years in the

Figure 1. Final hit rates of all learning strategies at different delay intervals. Error bars
represent standard errors of the mean.
2092 Psychological Reports 123(6)

Figure 2. False alarm rates of all learning strategies at different delay intervals. Error bars
represent standard errors of the mean.

immediate test. No significant differences were found between the elaboration

group’s scores and retrieval practice without feedback groups’ scores—
p ¼ 0.814, d ¼ 0.111, 95% CI (0.03, 0.07)—and the repetitive learning
groups’ scores—p ¼ 0.922, d ¼ 0.078, 95% CI (0.04, 0.06)—or between the
retrieval practice without feedback and repetitive learning groups’ scores—
p ¼ 0.994, d ¼ 0.037, 95% CI (0.05, 0.06), reflecting the children’s memory
performance of hit rates after a 5-minute delay has no differences in these learn-
ing conditions which reflects the importance of feedback to retrieval practice
effects in the immediate test.
Final hit rates after a one-week delay, significant differences were also found
between the various learning strategies, F(3, 100) ¼ 29.598, p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.470,
95% CI (0.70, 0.74). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicated that the retrieval
practice with feedback group’s scores (M ¼ 0.856, SD ¼ 0.100) were higher
than the elaboration groups (M ¼ 0.777, SD ¼ 0.109), p ¼ 0.050, d ¼ 0.353,
95% CI (0.00, 0.16), retrieval practice without feedback group’s scores
(M ¼ 0.664, SD ¼ 0.125), p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.646, 95% CI (0.11, 0.27), and repeti-
tive learning group’s scores (M ¼ 0.594, SD ¼ 0.098), p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.797, 95%
CI (0.18, 0.34); the elaboration group scored significantly higher than the
retrieval practice without feedback, p ¼ 0.002, d ¼ 0.434, 95% CI (0.03, 0.19),
and repetitive learning groups, p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.661, 95% CI (0.10, 0.26). The
results revealed that the retrieval practice with feedback remained superior in
the one-week delay test. This is the same as the immediate test results, and the
Ma et al. 2093

difference between the repetitive learning and retrieval practice without feed-
back groups’ scores was not significant, p ¼ 0.107, d ¼ 0.297, 95% CI
(0.15, 0.01).
In tests after one month, significant differences were found between the var-
ious learning strategies, F(3, 100) ¼36.724, p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.524, 95% CI (0.67,
0.71). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicated scores in the retrieval practice with
feedback group (M ¼ 0.841, SD ¼ 0.105) were significantly higher than in the
elaboration group (M ¼ 0.731, SD ¼ 0.128), p ¼ 0.002, d ¼ 0.425, 95% CI (0.03,
0.19), retrieval practice without feedback group (M ¼ 0.631, SD ¼ 0.085),
p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.739, 95% CI (0.13, 0.29), and repetitive learning group
(M ¼ 0.551, SD ¼ 0.098), p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.819, 95% CI (0.21, 0.37); the elabora-
tion group’s scores were remarkably higher than the retrieval practice without
feedback, p ¼ 0.005, d ¼ 0.418, 95% CI (0.02, 0.18), and repetitive learning
groups’ scores, p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.619, 95% CI (0.10, 0.26); and the retrieval prac-
tice without feedback groups’ scores were significantly higher than the repetitive
learning group’s scores, p ¼ 0.038, d ¼ 0.399, 95% CI (0.00, 0.16). Obviously, the
result revealed that the retrieval practice with feedback was still better than the
other conditions on the delayed test after one month. But the difference is that
with the expansion of the interval, the effect of the retrieval practice without
feedback increases, which is better than the repetitive learning. This also verified
our research hypothesis.

Memory performance: False alarm rates

Figure 2 presents false alarm rates in each of the four groups in the final tests at
delay intervals of 5 minutes, one week, and one month. We conducted a 4  3
analysis of repeated-measures ANOVA with the between-subjects factors of
learning conditions (elaboration, retrieval practice with feedback, retrieval prac-
tice without feedback, and repetitive learning) and testing intervals (5 minutes,
one week, and one month) as a within-subjects factor. The main effect of testing
interval was significant, F(2, 200) ¼ 72.547, p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.420, 95% CI (0.32,
0.50); the main effect of groups was significant, F(3, 100) ¼ 11.175, p < 0.01,
g2p ¼ 0.251, 95% CI (0.10, 0.36). Additionally, the interaction between testing
interval and learning strategy was significant, F(6, 200) ¼ 2.951, p < 0.01,
g2p ¼ 0.081, 95% CI (0.01, 0.14).
Simple effect analysis indicated a marginal significant difference between the
accuracy of the various learning strategies in the immediate test, F(3, 100) ¼ 3.674,
p < 0.05, g2p ¼ 0.099, 95% CI (0.08, 0.13). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicated
that scores in the repetitive learning group (M ¼ 0.151, SD ¼ 0.130) were signif-
icantly higher than in the elaboration group (M ¼ 0.072, SD ¼ 0.077), p ¼ 0.046,
d ¼ 0.346, 95% CI (0.00, 0.16) and retrieval practice with feedback group
(M ¼ 0.069, SD ¼ 0.061), p ¼ 0.035, d ¼ 0.374, 95% CI (0.00, 0.16). No significant
2094 Psychological Reports 123(6)

differences were found between the retrieval practice without feedback

(M ¼ 0.126, SD ¼ 0.140) and repetitive learning groups’ scores—p ¼ 0.826,
d ¼ 0.092, 95% CI (0.10, 0.05)—or between the elaboration group and retrieval
practice with feedback group—p ¼ 1.000, d ¼ 0.021, 95% CI (0.07, 0.08)—and
retrieval practice without feedback groups’ scores—p ¼ 0.287, d ¼ 0.232, 95% CI
(0.13, 0.02). The results show that the false alarm rates of immediate test in the
repetitive learning and retrieval practice without feedback group are more likely
to confuse the previously learned pictures compared with other learn-
ing conditions.
Significant differences were also found between the various learning strategies
tests in tests delayed by one week, F(3, 100) ¼ 9.198, p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.216, 95%
CI (0.16, 0.20). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicated that scores in the repetitive
learning group (M ¼ 0.264, SD ¼ 0.129) were significantly higher than in the
elaboration group (M ¼ 0.126, SD ¼ 0.102)—p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.510, 95% CI
(0.06, 0.22)—and retrieval practice with feedback group (M ¼ 0.123,
SD ¼ 0.086)—p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.540, 95% CI (0.05, 0.22). No significant differ-
ences were found between the repetitive learning and retrieval practice without
feedback groups’ scores (M ¼ 0.203, SD ¼ 0.133)—p ¼ 0.215, d ¼ 0.227, 95% CI
(0.02, 0.14)—or between the elaboration group and retrieval practice with
feedback groups’ scores—p ¼ 1.000, d ¼ 0.016, 95% CI (0.08, 0.09)—and
retrieval practice without feedback groups’ scores—p ¼ 0.077, d ¼ 0.308, 95%
CI (0.016, 0.01)—or between the retrieval practice with feedback groups’
scores and retrieval practice without feedback groups’ scores—p ¼ 0.064,
d ¼ 0.336, 95% CI (0.00, 0.16).
In tests after one month, there are significant differences were found between
the various learning strategies, F(3, 100) ¼ 13.081, p < 0.01, g2p ¼ 0.282, 95% CI
(0.20, 0.25). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicated that scores in the repetitive
learning group (M ¼ 0.310, SD ¼ 0.127) were significantly higher than in the
elaboration group (M ¼ 0.174, SD ¼ 0.114)—p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.490, 95% CI
(0.05, 0.22)—and retrieval practice with feedback group (M ¼ 0.133,
SD ¼ 0.080), p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.640, 95% CI (0.09, 0.26); the retrieval practice
without feedback group (M ¼ 0.280, SD ¼ 0.142) was significantly higher than
in the elaboration group—p ¼ 0.010, d ¼ 0.380, 95% CI (0.02, 0.19)—and
retrieval practice with feedback group—p ¼ 0.000, d ¼ 0.537, 95% CI (0.06,
0.23). No significant differences were found between the repetitive learning
and retrieval practice without feedback group’ scores—p ¼ 0.786, d ¼ 0.110,
95% CI (0.06, 0.11)—or between the elaboration group and retrieval practice
with feedback groups’ scores—p ¼ 0.598, d ¼ 0.204, 95% CI (0.13, 0.04). This
result shows that even in a longer interval delay, children can still maintain a
lower false alarm rates in retrieval practice with feedback, followed by elabora-
tion. The ability to avoid material confusion to a certain extent demonstrates the
importance of retrieval practice and feedback.
Ma et al. 2095

Discussion
We found the following retrieval practices facilitate pictorial learning in children
aged six and seven years; retrieval with feedback promotes memory more effec-
tively than elaboration at delay intervals of 5 minutes, one week, and one
month; and retrieval without feedback promotes memory more effectively
than repetitive learning at one-month intervals. We attribute these effects to
test practices.
Three issues require discussion. First, feedback has an important effect on
retrieval practice. In the present experiment, scores in the retrieval practice with
feedback group were consistently higher than in both the elaboration group and
retrieval practice without feedback group. Retrieval practice is more beneficial
when combined with feedback because it enables test takers to correct errors and
maintain correct responses (Roediger & Butler, 2011). The critical mechanism in
learning from tests is successful retrieval. However, if learners do not retrieve the
correct response and have no recourse to learn it, the advantages of retrieval
practice may be partly or completely obscured. Furthermore, learners may even
learn incorrect responses (Roediger & Butler, 2011). In theory, feedback can
correct or replace previously formed false mental representations and provide
useful mental linkages that can be strengthened (Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, &
Rohrer, 2005), and Bahrick and Hall (2005) found that the individual is very
clear about the meaning of retrieval failure, and the content of failure will
prompt him/her to change the encoding strategy when it appears again.
Therefore, providing feedback after a retrieval attempt may facilitate successful
future retrieval regardless of whether the initial attempt was successful or unsuc-
cessful (Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2008; Butler & Roediger, 2008). This is
consistent with our results, that is, when the test is accompanied by feedback—
whether in an immediate or delayed test—the feedback is more conducive to
memory retention than repetitive learning.
Second, the testing interval has an important effect on retrieval practice when
testing without feedback. Longer test delay intervals are associated with greater
advantages of retrieval practice (Jonge, Tabbers, & Rikers, 2015; Kester &
Tabbers, 2008; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a), especially when no feedback
was given to participants (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). In the present research,
the interaction between testing intervals and learning strategies on the hit rates
was significant. No significant differences were found between the retrieval prac-
tice without feedback and repetitive learning groups in tests conducted after
5 minutes and one week; however, after one month, hit rates in the retrieval
practice without feedback group were higher than in the repetitive learning
group. This indicates that retrieval without feedback has an enduring effect
on memory. Roediger and Karpicke (2006a) found similar results in tests con-
ducted after 5-minute delays, with SSSS scoring higher than SSST and SSST
scoring higher than STTT; however, in tests conducted after a one-week delay,
2096 Psychological Reports 123(6)

the results were inverted: STTT scored higher than SSST and SSST scored
higher than SSSS where “S” stand for study and “T” for test. Bjork’s (1994,
1999) theoretical approach is useful in understanding our results. He distin-
guished between storage strength (relative permanence of the memory trace)
and retrieval strength (momentary accessibility of a trace). Furthermore, the
study found that positive effects of retrieval on storage strength were inversely
related to retrieval strength. In other words, repeated learning is the “easy”
condition because of exposure materials that produce rapid learning and
short-term benefits, while repeated retrieval is the “difficult” condition because
of masking materials that produce difficult retrievals and strong positive effects
on a delayed test.
Finally, elaboration had substantially greater retention than retrieval practice
without feedback. In the present research, no significant difference on the hit
rates was found between elaboration, retrieval practice without feedback, and
repetitive learning groups in tests conducted 5 minutes after study. However,
after one-week and one-month intervals, hit rates in the elaboration group were
higher than in both the retrieval practice without feedback and repetitive learn-
ing groups. Additionally, the difference in false alarm rates between the elabo-
ration group and the retrieval practice with feedback group was not significant,
and these were significantly lower than the repetitive learning groups from one
week to one month. This result is similar to the study of Newman (1990) who
found that playing games had a better memory effect than conscious retrieval.
As mentioned above, that implicit memory develops prior to explicit memory
and is fully functional by the age of three years (Parkin, 1993); however, con-
scious remembering is acquired and improved markedly from two years of age
to adolescence (Carroll, Byrne, & Kirsner, 1985; Parkin & Streete, 1988). Thus,
six- and seven-year-old children exhibit weak intentional memory and dominant
unintentional memory. Participants in the elaboration group were required to
manipulate the pictures and tell a story. This approach is a form of implicit
memory building that could promote the endurance of children’s
memory retention.
In conclusion, retrieval practice promotes enduring memory retention in pic-
torial learning for children aged six to seven years. Instead of giving young
children materials for repeated learning, better alternatives would be to repeat
retrieval tasks or to play games. That said, although “learning by playing” is
good for young children, the best alternative for enhanced and more durable
retention is to utilize repetitive retrieval followed by feedback. This study has
some limitations. For example, it only used pictured-based materials to com-
pare, but we did not attempt to find whether the learning of word-based materi-
als within the scope of children’s vocabulary abilities would produce similar
effects. In addition, only first-grade children participated in this study and with-
out a longitudinal comparison. According to the development characteristics of
memory, a longitudinal comparison would make the research more meaningful.
Ma et al. 2097

Therefore, future studies can verify this problem and maximize the benefit of
retrieval practice effects for children. From the perspective of real education,
this discovery provides important hints for children to improve memory reten-
tion by adopting retrieval practice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the projects of the
human social science on Young Fund of the Ministry of Education (15YJC190015),
Research on Modeling of Auxiliary Diagnosis and Recognition of Multimodal
Depression Based on Deep Learning(31860285) and the Young Teacher Research
Capacity Advancement Program of Northwest Normal University (NWNU-LKQN-
13–25).

ORCID iD
Xiaofeng Ma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8089-8193

References
Anooshian, L. J. (1997). Distinctions between implicit and explicit memory: Significance
for understanding cognitive development. International Journal of Behavior
Development, 21, 453–478. doi:10.1080/016502597384749
Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term
retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory &
Language, 52(4), 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.012
Baker-Ward, L., Hess, T. M., & Flannagan, D. A. (1990). The effects of involvement on
children’s memory for events. Cognitive Development, 5(1), 55–69. doi:10.1016/0885-
2014(90)90012-I
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human
beings. Metacognition Knowing About Knowing, 185–205.
Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D.
Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XV11 (pp.435–459).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to
repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 36(5), 1118–1133. doi:10.1037/a0019902
Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). Correcting a metacognitive
error: Feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 918–928.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.918
2098 Psychological Reports 123(6)

Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and
reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36(3),
604–616. doi:10.3758/MC.36.3.604
Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of
elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 35(6), 1563–1569. doi:10.1037/a0017021
Carpenter, S. K., & Delosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to
name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 619–636. doi:10.1002/acp.1101
Carpenter, S. K., & Delosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent
retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect.
Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 268–276. doi:10.3758/BF03193405
Carroll, M., Byrne, B., & Kirsner, K. (1985). Autobiographical memory and perceptual
learning: A developmental study using picture recognition, naming latency, and per-
ceptual identification. Memory & Cognition, 13(3), 273–279. doi:10.3758/bf03197690
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed
practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 642 354–380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Drummey, A. B., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Developmental changes in source memory.
Developmental Science, 5, 502–513. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00243
Finn, B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2011). Enhancing retention through reconsolidation
negative emotional arousal following retrieval enhances later recall. Psychological
Science, 22(6), 781–786. doi:10.1177/0956797611407932
Foley, M. A., & Johnson, M. K. (1985). Confusions between memories for performed
and imagined actions: A developmental comparison. Child Development, 56,
1145–1155. doi:10.2307/1130229
Ghetti, S., & Angelini, L. (2008). The development of recollection and familiarity in
childhood and adolescence: Evidence from the dual-process signal detection model.
Child Development, 79(2), 339. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01129.x
Ghetti, S., & Bauer, P. J. (2012). Origins and development of recollection: Perspectives
from psychology and neuroscience. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Goossens, N. A., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Tabbers, H. K. (2014). The effect of
retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 28(1), 135–142. doi:10.1002/acp.2956
Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K., & Zwaan,
R. A. (2014). The benefit of retrieval practice over elaborative restudy in primary
school vocabulary learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition,
3(3), 177–182. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.05.003
Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance
subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 505–513. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-
0174-0
Guillery-Girard Bérengère, Sylvie, M., Sebastien, D., Lucie, H. P., Catherine, C., &
Jambaqué Isabelle, et al. (2013). Developmental trajectories of associative memory
from childhood to adulthood: a behavioral and neuroimaging study. Frontiers in
Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(10), 126. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00126
Istomina, Z. M. (1975). The development of voluntary memory in preschool-age children.
Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 13(4), 5–64. doi:10.2753/
RPO1061-040513045
Ma et al. 2099

Jonge, M. D., Tabbers, H. K., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2015). The effect of testing on the
retention of coherent and incoherent text material. Educational Psychology Review,
27(2), 305–315. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9300-z
Kang, S. H., Lindsey, R. V., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2014). Retrieval practice over
the long term: Should spacing be expanding or equal-interval? Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 21(6), 1544–1550. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0636-z
Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., & Smith, M. A. (2016). Retrieval-based learning: Positive effects
of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(104), 350.
Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, S. S. (2014). Retrieval-based
learning: The need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 198–206. doi:10.1016/j.
jarmac.2014.07.008
Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: An epi-
sodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 61, pp. 237–284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-
12-800283-4.00007-1
Kester, L., & Tabbers, H. (2008). The effect of intervening tests on text retention. In
Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8827-8_25
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance
subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory &
Cognition, 35(4), 989. doi:10.1037/a0015729
Marsh, E. J., Fazio, L. K., & Goswick, A. E. (2012). Memorial consequences of testing
school-aged children. Memory, 20(8), 899–906. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.708757
Mitchell, D. B. (1993). Implicit and explicit memory for pictures: Multiple views across
the lifespan. In P. Graf & M. E. J. Masson (Eds.), Implicit memory: New directions in
cognition, development, and neuropsychology (pp. 171–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Newman, L. S. (1990). Intentional and unintentional memory in young children:
Remembering vs. playing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50(2),
243–258. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90041-6
Parkin, A. J. (1993). Implicit memory across the lifespan. In P. Graf & M. E. J. Masson
(Eds.), Implicit memory: New directions in cognition, development, and neuropsychology
(pp. 191–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parkin, A. J., & Streete, S. (1988). Implicit and explicit memory in young children and
adults. British Journal of Psychology, 79(3), 361–369. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.
tb02295.x
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback
facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 31(1), 3–8. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3
Petros, T., & Hoving, K. (1980). The effects of review on young children’s memory for
prose. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30(1), 33–43. doi:10.1016/0022-0965
(80)90073-9
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effec-
tiveness hypothesis. Science, 330(6002), 335. doi:10.1126/science.1191465
Raj, V., & Bell, M. A. (2010). Cognitive processes supporting episodic memory formation
in childhood: The role of source memory, binding, and executive functioning.
Developmental Review, 30(4), 384–402. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.02.001
2100 Psychological Reports 123(6)

Ritchie, S. J., Della, S. S., & Mcintosh, R. D. (2013). Retrieval practice, with or without
mind mapping, boosts fact learning in primary school children. PLoS One, 8(11),
e78976. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078976
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term
retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
Roediger, H. L., III., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory
tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Roediger, H. L., III., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic
research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological
Science A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 1(3), 181.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 233. doi:
10.1037/a0017678
Spitzer, & H., F. (1939). Studies in retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(9),
641–656. doi: 10.1037/h0063404
Tulving, E. (1967). The effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall learning
1. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(2), 175–184. doi:10.1016/S0022-
5371(70)80009-3

Author Biographies
Xiaofeng Ma, is associate professor of the School of Psychology, Northwest Normal
University. He is a PhD in Development and Educational Psychology who is mainly
engaged in teaching psychology, learning and cognition, teaching and research
work. His research interests involve psychological mechanisms and strategies for
efficient learning, and cognitive neural mechanisms for learning and memory.

Tiantian Li, is master of Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, Northwest

Normal University.

Kuni Duzi, is undergraduate Psychology, Northwest Normal University.

Zeng yan Li, is master of Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, Northwest

Normal University.

Xifeng Ma, is master of Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, Northwest

Normal University.

Yanru Li, PhD, Department of Education, University of York, England.

Ai-Bao Zhou, is professor of Psychology, College of Northwest Normal University.

Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.