Retrieval practice versus elaborative encoding: a systematic and meta-analytic review

Abstract

Retrieval practice has been consistently shown to be more beneficial for learning than restudy (e.g., rereading). An important question, however, is whether these benefits are reproduced when retrieval practice is compared to tasks that typically have positive effects on learning. To approach this question, we conducted a systematic and meta-analytic review and found 44 empirical studies that directly compared retrieval practice to such “elaborative” conditions. The selected studies yielded 142 relevant comparisons, which were analyzed from the perspective of 7 guiding research questions. The questions approached whether retrieval practice is overall more beneficial than elaborative conditions (Q1), and whether format of retrieval practice (Q2), provision of corrective feedback (Q3), retention versus transfer final tests (Q4), complexity of materials (Q5), retention interval (Q6), and type of elaborative task (Q7), affect these potential benefits. The meta-analysis showed a small but significant overall advantage of retrieval over the elaborative conditions (g = 0.14) and an advantage for retrieval practice in the form of free recall versus cued recall (g = 0.23). In addition, the advantage of retrieval was conditional to the provision of feedback (g = 0.50), with elaborative encoding becoming more beneficial than retrieval when feedback was unavailable. Finally, the analysis showed that the benefits of retrieval practice were restricted to comparisons with concept mapping and group discussions, producing indistinguishable effects relative to the remaining elaborative tasks. In sum, the positive effects of retrieval are significantly diminished relative to elaborative encoding tasks known for decades to benefit retention, a fact that has important implications for educational and research purposes. These implications are further explored in the answers to the current research questions.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints), 2025 · DOI ↗