Retrieval-Monitoring-Feedback (RMF) Technique for Producing Efficient and Durable Student Learning

Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amlund, J. T., Kardash, C. M., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1986). Repetitive reading and recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2007). Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J. T., & Vul, E. (2008). The effects of tests on learning and forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 36, 438–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrier, L. M. (2003). College students’ choices of study strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56, 236–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, J. C. K. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cull, W. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Dunlosky, J., Hartwig, M., Rawson, K. A., & Lipko, A. R. (2011). Improving college students’ evaluation of text learning using idea-unit standards. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M., & Thiede, K. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Cognitive Technology, 10, 4–11.Google Scholar
  13. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Feldt, R. C., & Ray, M. (1989). Effect of test expectancy on preferred study strategy use and test performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 1157–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Bjork, R. A., Gelman, R., & Wickens, T. D. (2000). When further learning fails: Stability and change following repeated presentation of text. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Nolan, D., & Singleton, J. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice: An effective aid to preschool children’s learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 991–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits—and costs—of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Logan, J. M., & Balota, D. A. (2008). Expanded vs. equal interval spaced retrieval practice: Exploring different schedules of spacing and retention interval in younger and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 15, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 743–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2011). Costs and benefits of dropout schedules of test-restudy practice: Implications for student learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rawson, K., & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test enhanced learning: Taking memory tests to improve long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations