Retrieval-Monitoring-Feedback (RMF) Technique for Producing Efficient and Durable Student Learning
In this chapter, we overview the Retrieval-Monitoring-Feedback (RMF) technique, a learning technology designed to promote both durable and efficient student learning of key concepts from course material. In the RMF technique, key concepts are first presented for initial study followed by RMF trials. Phase 1 of each RMF trial involves retrieval practice, in which the concept term is presented as a cue and the student attempts to type the correct definition into the computer. In Phase 2 of each trial, the student then monitors the quality of the retrieved response using computer-generated feedback, which helps students evaluate whether their response includes the key ideas comprising the definition. In Phase 3, the correct answer is presented intact for a self-paced restudy opportunity. The RMF program uses the student’s monitoring judgments to schedule subsequent practice trials for each item. Recent research has shown that the RMF technique can yield relatively impressive levels of long-term retention of key concepts. The RMF technique can be used to support learning for materials from many different topic domains and promises to benefit a wide range of learners.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, through Grant # R305A080316 to Kent State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the US Department of Education.
- Cull, W. L., Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1996). Expanding understanding of the expanding-pattern-of-retrieval mnemonic: Toward confidence in applicability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 365–378.Google Scholar
- Dunlosky, J & Ariel, R. (2011). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 103–140.Google Scholar
- Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M., & Thiede, K. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Cognitive Technology, 10, 4–11.Google Scholar
- Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lipko, A. R., Dunlosky, J., Hartwig, M. K., Rawson, K. A., Swan, K., & Cook, D. (2009). Using standards to improve middle-school students’ accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 307–318.Google Scholar
- Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
- Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283–302.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 and Applications, 4, 11–18.Google Scholar
- Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2008). Procedural metacognition in children: Evidence for developmental trends. In R. A. Bjork & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 391–409). UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85–106). Psychology Press: NY.Google Scholar
- Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar