View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Retrieval Practice in Education for Sustainable Development: Effects on Retention, Attitudes, and Self-Reported Streaming Behaviour

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Retrieval Practice in Education for Sustainable Development: Effects on Retention, Attitudes, and Self-Reported Streaming Behaviour
Language: English
Authors: Daria Mundt (ORCID 0000-0003-0592-3771), Nele Albrecht, Anita Körner (ORCID 0000-0003-3761-2118), Mirjam Ebersbach
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(4).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Sustainable Development, Environmental Education, Information Retrieval, Online Searching, Reprography, Comparative Testing, Learning Processes, Attitude Change
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12735
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Education for Sustainable Development focuses on improving environmental knowledge to combat misinformation and promote sustainable behaviours. In two experiments, we investigated whether retrieval practice, known to foster lasting knowledge acquisition, is a useful tool for (1) increasing environmental knowledge and (2) for improving environmental attitudes and behaviour (i.e., spillover effect). Participants studied a text on the effects of online streaming behaviour by means of retrieval practice or by copying the text. Knowledge gain was assessed after one (Experiment 1) and two weeks (Experiment 2). Attitudes and behaviour were assessed pre- and post-intervention. In both experiments, participants recalled more environmental knowledge after retrieval practice compared to copying. Attitudes and behaviour did not differ between both groups, but attitudes increased after the intervention in both groups. Only Experiment 1 showed declining streaming times. Our findings suggest that retrieval practice enhances lasting knowledge acquisition but barely affects environmental attitudes and behaviour.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/3vfp4
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450299
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH2mlcXdasAsu6Qu4zAe0sfAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI6X7DqAY8ClbEYUXwIBEICBm3EocshxWsdpCkvWKnON_pD_LfSMK2TnOH5_phxg7W_6UkUSvODqhBlzjNBs7emI5M1Ri2u2sV1LKgZSQvRr2CNvfDuNVibgQBEJB5wbZ8xpdsZ2U0lynS_9dHYbeRMEV3Xv0fX46Ko71LgkS0Ea7N3j86vy6B5k2nekJTdA5lqWSZ1NeeNZ4RFCybFgDEGoYRmsZH7I8Xc8VC9i
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181057338;eje01dec.24;2024Nov26.04:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181057338-1">Retrieval practice in education for sustainable development: Effects on retention, attitudes, and self‐reported streaming behaviour </title> <p>Education for Sustainable Development focuses on improving environmental knowledge to combat misinformation and promote sustainable behaviours. In two experiments, we investigated whether retrieval practice, known to foster lasting knowledge acquisition, is a useful tool for (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) increasing environmental knowledge and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) for improving environmental attitudes and behaviour (i.e., spillover effect). Participants studied a text on the effects of online streaming behaviour by means of retrieval practice or by copying the text. Knowledge gain was assessed after one (Experiment 1) and two weeks (Experiment 2). Attitudes and behaviour were assessed pre‐ and post‐intervention. In both experiments, participants recalled more environmental knowledge after retrieval practice compared to copying. Attitudes and behaviour did not differ between both groups, but attitudes increased after the intervention in both groups. Only Experiment 1 showed declining streaming times. Our findings suggest that retrieval practice enhances lasting knowledge acquisition but barely affects environmental attitudes and behaviour.</p> <p>Keywords: attitude change; behaviour change; Education for Sustainable Development; environmental knowledge; retrieval practice; testing effect</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) aims to equip learners with knowledge, skills and agency to address pressing issues of sustainability, such as climate change, species extinction, unsustainable resource use and global injustice (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref3">66</reflink>]). In doing so, ESD includes key competencies that are critical to achieving the objectives of the EU's Green Deal (European Commission, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]). Moreover, it overlaps with the United Nations' 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref5">66</reflink>]). Thus, one key goal of ESD is providing individuals with the abilities necessary to promote a sustainable future (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref6">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present research examines how transfer of climate‐change related knowledge can be fostered. A major challenge in ESD is identifying effective strategies to teach complex and interdisciplinary knowledge in a way that ensures understanding, long‐term retention, and corresponding changes in attitudes and behaviour. Instructional psychology recommends evidence‐based learning and teaching principles to improve learning (Schwieren et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref7">58</reflink>]) with <emph>retrieval practice</emph>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>] being one with considerably large and robust effects (e.g., Agarwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]; Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref10">53</reflink>]; Schwieren et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref11">58</reflink>]). Various studies demonstrated that retrieving information actively enhances long‐term retention (e.g., Adesope et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; Agarwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]; Akbulut, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]; Roelle et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref15">51</reflink>]). The present study investigated retrieval practice as a tool to promote effective long‐term learning of environmental knowledge in ESD. As far as we know, there are no studies that explicitly investigate retrieval practice in this context. However, as retrieval practice has been argued to be one of the most effective evidence‐based learning methods (e.g., Dunlosky et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]), this research gap should be closed. Moreover, if retrieval practice proves efficacious, stakeholders in the field of education should be made aware of the benefits of retrieval practice to improve their knowledge transfer strategies.</p> <p>In sum, by examining learning and retention of climate‐related knowledge, our study contributes to the ongoing discourse of how to combat climate‐change related misinformation and facilitate the dissemination of valuable knowledge. Furthermore, our study should encourage researchers of learning and teaching strategies to focus more on learning content related to ESD in order to demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of evidence‐based learning methods such as retrieval practice. Besides examining the generalizability of the effect of retrieval practice on knowledge retention in the domain of ESD, we aimed at investigating its potential spillover effect on participants' attitudes and self‐reported behaviour. Specifically, we examined whether retrieval practice improves not only memory for facts but extends to corresponding attitudes and behaviour. To our knowledge, there are no studies yet that have examined such transfer effects of retrieval practice. If it does have broader impacts, retrieval practice as a learning and intervention method could become even more valuable in practical contexts outside of education. Here, we focused on online streaming behaviour (i.e., watching videos from online sources) because online streaming contributes markedly to global warming due to the environmental impact of data storage and data transfer (Efoui‐Hess, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]; Song et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref18">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-3">Retrieval practice as evidence‐based learning method</hd> <p>The <emph>testing effect</emph> denotes the finding that learners can recall learning material over longer periods of time when they have actively retrieved the learning material rather than when they have passively repeated it (e.g., Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref19">53</reflink>]). Many studies confirmed the testing effect when comparing retrieval practice with an additional study opportunity, usually referred to as <emph>restudy</emph> (e.g., Adesope et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>]; Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref21">53</reflink>]). Restudy was usually operationalized as rereading (e.g., Carpenter et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]; McDaniel et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]), or as copying the learning material (e.g., Goossens et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]; Kornell et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]), which ensures that learners are actively engaged with the material. Numerous studies examined retrieval practice in laboratory (e.g., Karpicke & Blunt, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]) and in classroom settings (e.g., Agarwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]; Akbulut, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>A typical study design consists of a learning phase, including the presentation of the learning material, a practice phase, including either retrieval practice or restudy, and a final test. Between practice phase and final test, many studies incorporate a delay to investigate long‐term learning effects (e.g., Mundt et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref29">41</reflink>]; Rummer et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref30">55</reflink>]). Immediately after the practice phase, learners in the restudy condition usually outperform those in the retrieval practice condition. However, after a delay, the pattern is reversed, with learners in the retrieval practice condition outperforming those in the restudy condition (e.g., Halamish & Bjork, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]; Roediger & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref33">49</reflink>]), indicating slower forgetting rates by means of retrieval practice (Halamish & Bjork, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]; Mundt et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the present study, we expected to replicate the testing effect for environmental knowledge. We combined retrieval practice with feedback, because feedback corrects missing or wrongly recalled information. This approach increases the successful recall of the learned information in the practice phase (e.g., Butler & Roediger, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]; Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]), which in turn increases the probability of correct retrieval in the final test (Agarwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]; Schwieren et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref39">58</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-4">Potential effects of retrieval practice on attitudes and behaviour</hd> <p>Research on retrieval practice so far focused primarily on learning benefits (e.g., Adesope et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]; Agarwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]; Roelle et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref42">51</reflink>]). Since retrieval practice improves long‐term retention of facts, it might also improve the long‐term retention of behaviour‐related knowledge. In addition, retrieval practice could lead to changes in individuals' attitudes and behaviours, as environmental knowledge in itself has been found to be associated with pro‐environmental attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Bamberg & Möser, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>]; Hines et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]), although effect sizes varied (cf. Geiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous research has found that environmental education interventions result in stronger pro‐environmental attitudes among participants compared to control activities (Collado et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]; Schmitz & da Rocha, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref47">57</reflink>]), and compared to pre‐intervention measures (Preuit & Yan, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]; Sellmann & Bogner, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref49">60</reflink>]; Weingarten & Hartmann, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref50">70</reflink>]). For instance, receiving information on reducing carbon impact effectively decreased participants' carbon footprint related to their online streaming activities (Seger et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref51">59</reflink>]). Similarly, after nudging participants with procedural knowledge about healthy food preparation, participants demonstrated a shift towards more sustainable consumption patterns (Morren et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>]). Lastly, students reported decreased littering after a short‐term environmental education intervention (Hartley et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]). Thus, several studies confirmed the effects of knowledge on pro‐environmental behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-5">The present study</hd> <p>In two experiments, we compared the effects of retrieval practice (with feedback) and copying the learning material on the retention of environmental knowledge. Since retrieval practice promotes long‐term retention (e.g., Karpicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref54">32</reflink>]; Mundt et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref55">41</reflink>]; Rummer et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref56">55</reflink>]) and transfer to other knowledge contexts (e.g., Carpenter, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]; Roediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref58">50</reflink>]; Rohrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref59">52</reflink>]), our key questions were (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) whether retrieval practice enhances the acquisition of lasting knowledge about the environmental impact of online streaming behaviour, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) whether the positive effect of retrieval practice produces a spillover effect on participants' attitudes towards online streaming and their self‐reported streaming behaviour. Streaming behaviour was operationalized as self‐reported online streaming time in both experiments. Streaming attitude was assessed as a broad evaluation of participants' feelings towards streaming behaviour in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, the measure of streaming attitude focused more on the impact of online streaming on global warming by assessing the degree to which participants viewed individual online streaming behaviour as a driving force of global warming.</p> <p> <bold>Hypothesis 1.</bold> Given the robustness of the testing effect (e.g., Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref62">53</reflink>]; Schwieren et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref63">58</reflink>]), we expected participants in the retrieval practice condition to outperform participants in the copy condition on a recall test after one week (Experiment 1) and after two weeks (Experiment 2).</p> <p> <bold>Hypothesis 2.</bold> In our study, participants in both conditions read a text about the consequences of individual online streaming on global warming. Since several studies have shown that educational interventions can affect participants' attitudes (e.g., Armstrong & Impara, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]; Bradley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]; Sellmann & Bogner, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref66">60</reflink>]) and behaviour (e.g., Boyes & Stanisstreet, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref67">10</reflink>]; Hartley et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]; Seger et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>]), we expected a general intervention effect in both conditions on streaming attitudes and streaming behaviour (i.e., main effect of test session).</p> <p> <bold>Hypothesis 3.</bold> Given that retrieval practice improves learning, we expected a stronger change in the attitude and self‐reported streaming time for participants in the retrieval practice condition compared to those in the copy condition (i.e., interaction effect between learning method and test session).</p> <p> <bold>Hypothesis 4.</bold> In Experiment 1, we additionally assessed whether participants started using the browser extension "Carbonanalyser" (The Shift Project, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref70">65</reflink>]) after the intervention. The Carbonanalyser visualizes the CO<subs>2</subs> impact of one's own internet navigation on the climate and helps to monitor one's own streaming behaviour. We hypothesized that participants in the retrieval practice condition would use the Carbonanalyser after the intervention more often than those in the copy condition, because they had developed a higher problem awareness concerning online streaming behaviour.</p> <p>In both experiments, we used a mixed design, with learning method manipulated between participants and time manipulated within participants. By manipulating the learning method (copy vs. retrieval practice) between subjects, we ensured that the performance in one condition did not influence the performance in the other condition, avoiding carryover effects. Manipulating the test session (pre‐ vs. post‐intervention) within subjects allowed us to observe changes over time. This within‐subjects component helped in detecting shifts in attitudes and behaviour that might result from the intervention, providing a clear picture of temporal dynamics. Moreover, we could also examine differences before the manipulation between both groups to ensure that participants of both learning conditions started with similar values in attitudes and behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-6">EXPERIMENT 1</hd> <p>Experiment 1 examined the effects of retrieval practice compared to copying (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>) on lasting learning of environment‐related information, using a retention interval of one week and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>) on participants' streaming attitude and behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057338-8">Design</hd> <p>This online study had a mixed design with the between‐subjects factor learning method (copy vs. retrieval practice) and the within‐subjects factor test session (pre‐ vs. post‐intervention). As dependent variables, we assessed participants' attitude towards streaming and their actual online streaming behaviour. Additionally, we assessed the final test performance, addressing participants' acquired knowledge, after a delay of one week. In contrast to attitude towards streaming and streaming behaviour, participants' prior knowledge was not assessed to avoid further testing effects. Further, we assessed participants' use of the browser extension Carbonanalyser (The Shift Project, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref73">65</reflink>]) one week after the intervention. To check participants' engagement with the task, we also analysed the recall and the copy success during the practice phase.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-9">Sample</hd> <p>A total of 273 participants took part in both test sessions. Three participants were excluded due to being under 18 years old. Nine participants were omitted for providing unserious answers during the practice phase. Moreover, one participant from the copy condition was excluded for copying less than half of the information presented.</p> <p>The final sample (<emph>N</emph> = 262; copy condition: <emph>n</emph> = 136, retrieval practice condition: <emph>n</emph> = 126) consisted of 201 females, 60 males and one non‐binary participant, aged from 18 to 54 years (<emph>M</emph> = 25.13 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.84). Participants were mainly recruited via social networks. The majority of the participants were students (<emph>n</emph> = 206). As an incentive, participants could receive partial course credit, credit points for SurveyCircle (SurveyCircle, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref74">64</reflink>]), or could participate in a lottery, winning 1 × 30€ and 2 × 10€.</p> <p>A sensitivity analysis for a repeated measures ANOVA with G*Power (Faul et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]) revealed that our sample of <emph>N</emph> = 262 was sufficient to detect an effect of <emph>f</emph> = 0.08 if there was an effect (with Bonferroni‐corrected <emph>α</emph> = .025, 1 − <emph>β</emph> = .80, two groups, two measurements, correlation among repeated measures: <emph>r</emph> = .62).</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-10">Material and measurements</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057338-11">Learning material and practice items</hd> <p>Using mainly scientific sources (e.g., Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref76">16</reflink>]; Efoui‐Hess, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref77">18</reflink>]; The Shift Project, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref78">65</reflink>]), we compiled an informational text on online streaming consumption and its effect on the global climate. The text (1458 words) contained information that can be categorized as system knowledge, action‐related knowledge, and effectiveness knowledge (Frick et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>]). From the text, 14 sections were selected for the practice phase. Participants in the copy condition were asked to re‐type these sections verbatim. Participants in the retrieval practice condition were asked to answer 14 free‐recall test questions, each corresponding to text sections, and received corresponding copy sections as feedback after each question.</p> <p>Recall and copy success were calculated by assigning subscores (0.25–1), determined by the answer accuracy to each question in the retrieval practice condition or by the correctness of the copied text in the copy condition. These subscores were then added up to generate a score (0–14), reflecting participants' performance in each condition. The higher the score, the better the performance in recalling information (recall success) or copying information (copy success). Recall success in the retrieval practice condition was <emph>M</emph> = 5.17 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.54). Copy success in the copy condition was <emph>M</emph> = 11.16 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.95).</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-12">Final test</hd> <p>The final test performance was assessed by 14 single‐choice questions, each with three answer options in random order. Each question referred to one of the 14 text sections from the practice phase. We calculated the proportion of correct answers, yielding a score ranging from 0 and 1.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-13">Attitude towards streaming</hd> <p>To examine whether participants rated streaming behaviour more negatively after the intervention, we assessed participants' attitudes towards streaming. Following Ajzen ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]), we used a scale with items on general attitudes towards streaming and another one assessing how participants evaluate the consequences of streaming.</p> <p>To assess their general attitude towards streaming, participants were asked to rate their feelings towards streaming on a five‐point semantic differential scale, as commonly used in the context of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (e.g., Ajzen, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]; Barber et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]; Strydom, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]). Participants were asked to rate the meaning of streaming for themselves on ten counterbalanced adjective scales scored from 1 to 5 (e.g., <emph>good</emph>–<emph>bad</emph>, <emph>very relaxing</emph>–<emph>unrelaxing</emph>, <emph>useful</emph>–<emph>useless</emph>; see Supplemental Material Table SA1). For the analyses, we recoded the general attitude scale so that higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards streaming, while lower scores indicate more negative attitudes towards streaming.</p> <p>Furthermore, participants evaluated the consequences of streaming in relation to streaming activities presented in the learning material also on a 5‐point Likert Scale (see Supplemental Material Table SA2). We planned to compute the mean of the scores in both subscales (general streaming attitudes and evaluations of the consequences of streaming) to create a composite attitude index. Unfortunately, the reliability of the composite scale and also of the consequence component were both insufficient (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> < .70). Therefore, only the general attitudes scale was retained, with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .82 for the pre‐measurement and <emph>α</emph> = .84 for the post‐measurement.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-14">Streaming behaviour</hd> <p>To measure streaming behaviour, participants were asked to indicate their streaming time per week in hours and whether they used the browser extension Carbonanalyser (The Shift Project), which was introduced in the learning text. In addition, seven items were constructed to assess streaming behaviour, adapted from Ajzen ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref86">5</reflink>], see Supplemental Material Table SB1). However, due to unacceptable scale quality (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> < .70), the scale was excluded from the analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-15">Procedure</hd> <p>The online experiment consisted of two sessions with a time gap of one week and was implemented with LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref87">37</reflink>]). The first session started with the pre‐measurement of participants' streaming attitude and streaming behaviour. The learning phase followed, in which the participants read a text on the consequences of streaming across seven slides. Participants worked through the text sections at their own speed and were instructed not to take notes. If participants indicated at the end of the learning phase that they did not adhere to these instructions, the experiment ended directly without saving the corresponding data. For all remaining participants, the practice phase followed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two learning conditions. In the copy condition, participants copied text sections presented one at a time into an empty text box. After one minute, the next text section was automatically presented. In the retrieval practice condition, the open test questions were presented for 45 s to be answered in an empty text box below the displayed question. The correct answer was then displayed for 15 s before the next question was automatically presented. The first session ended with participants providing demographic data.</p> <p>After seven days, participants received an e‐mail with a link for the second session.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>] It started with the final test. Afterwards, participants again completed the scales referring to streaming attitude and behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-16">Results</hd> <p>Analyses were performed with R Statistical Software (Version 4.1.3; R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref89">46</reflink>]). All analyses and outcomes can be tracked at https://osf.io/3vfp4/. Descriptive values for the dependent variables final test performance, general streaming attitude, and streaming time are depicted in Table 1. For the planned one‐tailed <emph>t</emph>‐test, we used an alpha <.05 as an inference criterion (Hypothesis 1). For the two mixed ANOVAs, we used Bonferroni correction to account for multiple testing (i.e., alpha <.025 as inference criterion; Hypotheses 2 and 3).</p> <p>1 TABLE Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of final test performance, general streaming attitude and streaming time, depending on session (pre‐ vs. post‐intervention) and learning condition (copy vs. retrieval practice) in Experiment 1.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Dependent variable</th><th align="left">Learning condition</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Copy</th><th align="left">Retrieval practice</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) pre</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) post</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) pre</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) post</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Final test performance</td><td align="char" char="(">–</td><td align="char" char="(">0.65 (0.15)</td><td align="char" char="(">–</td><td align="char" char="(">0.72 (0.15)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General streaming attitude</td><td align="char" char="(">3.98 (0.50)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.66 (0.53)</td><td align="char" char="(">4.03 (0.53)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.77 (0.54)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Streaming time (in h)</td><td align="char" char="(">11.63 (7.14)</td><td align="char" char="(">9.52 (6.95)</td><td align="char" char="(">11.41 (7.52)</td><td align="char" char="(">9.48 (7.01)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Pre, pre‐intervention (Test session 1); Post, post‐intervention (Test session 2). For final test performance and general streaming attitude: <emph>n</emph><subs>copy</subs> = 136, <emph>n</emph><subs>retrieval practice</subs> = 126; for streaming time: <emph>n</emph><subs>copy</subs> = 132, <emph>n</emph><subs>retrieval practice</subs> = 123. Final test performance with possible values between 0 and 1. General streaming attitude on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating a more positive attitude towards streaming.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-17">Final test performance</hd> <p>We conducted a one‐tailed Welch two‐sample <emph>t</emph>‐test to check whether there was a testing effect in the recall test after one week (Hypothesis 1). As expected, participants in the retrieval practice condition outperformed those in the copy condition (see Table 1), <emph>t</emph>(259.70) = −4.11, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = 0.51, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.26, 0.75].</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-18">General streaming attitude</hd> <p>To examine whether retrieval practice had a differential (negative) effect on general streaming attitude, we conducted a two‐way mixed ANOVA with the learning method as between‐subject factor and test session as within‐subject factor. The general streaming attitude served as the dependent variable.</p> <p>In line with Hypothesis 2, the main effect of test session was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, 260) = 127.49, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .33, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.26, 0.40]. One week after the intervention, the general attitude towards streaming (<emph>M</emph> = 3.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.54) was more negative compared to the general attitude towards streaming before the intervention (<emph>M</emph> = 4.01, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.51).</p> <p>The main effect of the learning condition was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>, 260) = 1.87, <emph>p</emph> = .172, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.03]. Moreover, contrary to Hypothesis 3, the interaction effect of learning condition and test session was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 260) = 1.47, <emph>p</emph> = .226, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.03]. Thus, the general streaming attitude did not decline more in the retrieval practice condition than in the copy condition.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-19">Streaming time</hd> <p>To examine whether retrieval practice differentially reduces streaming time, we conducted a two‐way mixed ANOVA with the learning method as between‐subject factor and the test session as within‐subject factor. The streaming time served as dependent variable. For this analysis, seven extreme outliers in streaming behaviour were excluded, which were participants reporting to stream 45 hours or more per week.</p> <p>The main effect of test session was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>, 253) = 26.24, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .09, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.04, 0.15].[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref94">3</reflink>] One week after the intervention, the self‐reported streaming time (<emph>M</emph> = 9.50 h, <emph>Md</emph> = 8; <emph>SD</emph> = 6.97) was lower compared to the self‐reported streaming time before the intervention (<emph>M</emph> = 11.52 h, <emph>Md</emph> = 10, <emph>SD</emph> = 7.31), confirming Hypothesis 2.</p> <p>The main effect of the learning condition on the self‐reported streaming time was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>, 253) = 0.03, <emph>p</emph> = .867, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.01]. The interaction of the learning condition and test session was also not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>, 253) = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> = .820, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.01]. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed, because the streaming time did not change more strongly in the retrieval practice condition than in the copy condition.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-20">Use of the carbonanalyser</hd> <p>To test the influence of the learning condition on the usage of the Carbonanalyser after the intervention, we excluded three participants with prior usage. Post‐intervention usage was 3.76% in the copy condition and 4.76% in the retrieval practice condition. Fisher's exact test for count data showed no association between learning method and the usage of the Carbonanalyser, <emph>p</emph> = .764, <emph>OR</emph> = 1.27 95% [0.32, 5.44], disconfirming Hypothesis 4.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-21">Discussion Experiment 1</hd> <p>Replicating the testing effect, participants in the retrieval practice condition showed a better long‐term retention of facts concerning the influence of streaming on global warming than participants in the copy condition. In addition, there was a more negative general attitude towards streaming and a lower self‐reported streaming time irrespective of the learning condition after one week than before the intervention. This indicates that the facts provided in the study phase were sufficient to influence participants' streaming attitude and behaviour. However, no interaction effects of learning condition and test session were found, neither on the streaming attitude nor on the streaming time. In addition, no difference between the two conditions was observed regarding the use of the browser extension Carbonanalyser after the intervention. Although the study text improved streaming attitudes and behaviour, and retrieval practice facilitated retention, our hypothesis that improved retention would have downstream consequences on attitudes and behaviour could not be supported.</p> <p>However, some methodological issues could have distorted the results of Experiment 1. First, the order of the measures could have affected the main effect of the test session. We measured the streaming attitude and behaviour after the final recall test, as we wanted the final test to be unaffected by the attitude and behaviour items. However, in doing so, we cannot rule out the possibility that the final test (rather than the learning phase one week prior) influenced how participants responded to the attitude and behaviour items. Thus, increased awareness in both conditions could have been caused by the final test, rather than solely by the learning content presented one week before the final test. To prevent this influence in Experiment 2, we assessed the attitude and behaviour items first, followed by the final knowledge test.</p> <p>Second, the learning material dealt with the impact of streaming behaviour on the global environment, whereas the attitude scale addressed general feelings towards streaming. Since an attitude measurement more closely aligned with the learning content should be more sensitive to potential variations in the learning conditions, we decided to develop an environmental streaming attitude scale that covered attitudes concerning the environmental impact of streaming in Experiment 2.</p> <p>Third, to equalize processing times in both conditions, we had set the time for completing the copy and retrieval practice items on one minute per item in Experiment 1. However, the short time led to incomplete copying, as reflected by the copy success rates. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we extended the time for each copy and retrieval practice item to two minutes.</p> <p>Forth, although we found a benefit for the retrieval practice condition in the final test performance, a meta‐analysis has shown that the testing effect becomes larger with longer retention intervals (Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref97">53</reflink>]). Therefore, we expected a longer delay between practice phase and final test to make the benefit for retrieval practice stronger. This could facilitate detecting an influence of retrieval practice on streaming attitude and behaviour. Therefore, we extended the delay between the first and second test session from one week in Experiment 1 to two weeks in Experiment 2.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-22">EXPERIMENT 2</hd> <p>Experiment 2 was a direct replication of Experiment 1, with the changes described earlier.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-23">Method</hd> <p>Experiment 2 was preregistered at https://osf.io/3tk42/.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-24">Design</hd> <p>Experiment 2 had a mixed design with the between‐subjects factor learning method (copy vs. retrieval practice) and the within‐subjects factor test session (pre‐ vs. post‐intervention). Dependent variables were participants' environmental streaming attitude and their self‐reported streaming time as well as their final test performance. For descriptive purposes, we also calculated recall and copy success, respectively, during the practice phase.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-25">Sample</hd> <p>For an a priori sample size estimation, we performed a simulation‐based power analysis for calculating two ANOVAs using https://arcstats.io/shiny/anova‐exact/ (see Lakens & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref98">35</reflink>]). We set <emph>α</emph> = .025 (Bonferroni corrected), 1 − <emph>β</emph> = .80, the correlation among the repeated measures to <emph>r</emph> = .62 (equalling the smaller of the two correlations observed in Experiment 1), and the targeted effect sizes for both the test session effect and the learning method effect at the second session to 0.4 <emph>SD</emph>s (which is below the conventional level of a medium effect size, 0.5). Using these parameters, the power analysis yielded a required sample of <emph>N</emph> = 246.</p> <p>A total of 266 participants took part in both test sessions of the Experiment 2. Data of 14 participants who started the second session not 14 but 16 or more days after the first session were excluded. Additionally, three participants providing unserious answers during the practice phase and seven with extreme streaming times (40 or more hours per week) were excluded.</p> <p>The final sample (<emph>N</emph> = 242; copy condition: <emph>n</emph> = 118, retrieval practice condition: <emph>n</emph> = 124) consisted of 193 women, 46 men, 2 diverse, and one non‐respondent, aged from 18 to 44 years (<emph>M</emph> = 21.97 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.62). Participants were recruited on the university campus or via the local recruitment platform. As incentive, participants could receive partial course credit, or participate in a lottery to win one of 20 × 10€.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-26">Material and measurements</hd> <p>The learning material, retrieval practice items, text sections for the practice phase (for copy and feedback in the retrieval practice condition), and final test items were taken from Experiment 1. Recall success in the retrieval practice condition was <emph>M</emph> = 6.51 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.90). The copy success in the copy condition was <emph>M</emph> = 13.34 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.94).</p> <p>The environmental streaming attitude was operationalized by four items based on Neaman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref99">42</reflink>]) and Schleyer‐Lindenmann et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref100">56</reflink>]; e.g., "The impact of streaming on global warming worries me."—<emph>close English translation</emph>). Items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>; see Supplemental Material Table C1). The answers were averaged to create an environmental streaming attitude index. Scale quality was acceptable with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .73 in the pre‐measurement and Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .74 in the post‐measurement.</p> <p>For comparability with Experiment 1, we also assessed the general streaming attitude. Scale quality was again acceptable with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .78 in the pre‐measurement and good with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = .81 in the post‐measurement. The streaming behaviour was operationalized as self‐reported streaming time per week in hours, as in Experiment 1.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-27">Procedure</hd> <p>Experiment 2 consisted of two sessions with a time gap of two weeks and was implemented with Soscisurvey (Leiner, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref101">36</reflink>]). The first session took place in a laboratory, while the second session was conducted online. Like in Experiment 1, the first session started with the pre‐measurement of the streaming attitude and the streaming behaviour. The learning phase followed, in which participants were presented with the text on streaming consumption across seven slides. Participants read the text sections self‐paced. Participants were instructed not to take notes while reading. Then the practice phase followed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two learning conditions. In the copy condition, participants were asked to copy single sections of the text into an empty text box. After 120 s, the next text section was presented. In the retrieval practice condition, the open test questions were presented for 90 s in which participants were to write down the answer into an empty text box; then the correct answer, serving as feedback, appeared for additional 30 s. Then, the next question ensued. The first session ended after participants provided demographic data.</p> <p>After two weeks, the second session started with the post‐measurements on their streaming attitude and behaviour. Afterwards, participants completed the final recall test.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-28">Results</hd> <p>Analyses were performed with R Statistical Software (Version 4.1.3; R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref102">46</reflink>]). All analyses and the outcomes can be tracked at https://osf.io/3vfp4/. Descriptive values for the final test performance, general streaming attitude and streaming time are depicted in Table 2. For the planned one‐tailed <emph>t</emph>‐test, we used an alpha of.05 as inference criterion (Hypothesis 1). For the two mixed ANOVAs, we used the Bonferroni correction to account for multiple testing, which led to an alpha of.025 (Hypotheses 2 and 3).</p> <p>2 TABLE Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of final test performance, environmental streaming attitude and streaming time, depending on session (pre‐ vs. post‐intervention) and learning condition (copy vs. retrieval practice) in Experiment 2.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Dependent variable</th><th align="left">Learning condition</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Copy</th><th align="left">Retrieval practice</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) pre</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) post</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) pre</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) post</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Final test performance</td><td align="char" char="(">–</td><td align="char" char="(">0.69 (0.17)</td><td align="char" char="(">–</td><td align="char" char="(">0.77 (0.15)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Environmental streaming attitude</td><td align="char" char="(">3.57 (0.75)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.79 (0.76)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.56 (0.79)</td><td align="char" char="(">3.82 (0.70)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Streaming time (in h)</td><td align="char" char="(">11.19 (6.56)</td><td align="char" char="(">11.47 (7.46)</td><td align="char" char="(">11.79 (7.04)</td><td align="char" char="(">11.43 (7.39)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 242 (<emph>n</emph><subs>copy</subs> = 118, <emph>n</emph><subs>retrieval practice</subs> = 124). Pre: pre‐intervention (Test session 1); Post: post‐intervention (Test session 2). Final test performance with possible values between 0 and 1. Environmental streaming attitude on a scale of 1–5, with higher scores indicating a stronger environmental streaming attitude.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-29">Final test performance</hd> <p>We conducted a one‐tailed Welch two‐sample <emph>t</emph>‐test to test the testing effect (Hypothesis 1). As expected and in line with Experiment 1, participants in the retrieval practice condition outperformed those in the copy condition on the recall test after two weeks, <emph>t</emph>(234.04) = −3.94, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = 0.51, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.25, 0.76].</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-30">Environmental streaming attitude</hd> <p>To examine whether retrieval practice affected participants' environmental streaming attitude, we conducted a two‐way mixed ANOVA with the learning condition as between‐subject factor and test session as within‐subjects factor. Participants' environmental streaming attitude served as dependent variable. Similar to Experiment 1, the environmental streaming attitude was significantly higher after two weeks (<emph>M</emph> = 3.81, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.73) compared to the measurement before the intervention (<emph>M</emph> = 3.57, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.77), <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>, 240) = 35.06, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .13, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.07, 0.19].</p> <p>The main effect of the learning condition was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref104">1</reflink>, 240) = 0.01, <emph>p</emph> = .906, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.01]. Also, the interaction effect of learning condition and test session was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>, 240) = 0.15, <emph>p</emph> = .699, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.00]. Thus, the environmental streaming attitude did not change more strongly in the retrieval practice condition than in the copy condition, which is in line with the findings of Experiment 1 and again does not support Hypothesis 3.</p> <p>Our explorative analysis with the general streaming attitude, as used in Experiment 1, showed the same pattern of results with only a main effect for test session, revealing a lower general streaming attitude after two weeks compared to the measurement before the intervention, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>, 240) = 22.43, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .09, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.04, 0.15], but no main effect of learning condition and no interaction effect.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-31">Streaming time</hd> <p>To examine whether retrieval practice differentially reduced streaming time, we conducted a two‐way mixed ANOVA with the learning condition as between‐subject factor and the test session as within‐subject factor. The streaming time served as dependent variable. Contrary to Hypothesis 2 and to the results of Experiment 1, there was no main effect of test session, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>, 240) = 0.01, <emph>p</emph> = .926, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.00]. Thus, the self‐reported streaming times were not lower two weeks after the intervention compared to the measurement before the intervention.</p> <p>There was also no main effect of the learning condition on the self‐reported streaming time, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>, 240) = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = .740, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.01]. The interaction effect of learning condition and test session was also not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>, 240) = 0.70, <emph>p</emph> = .403, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.02]. Thus, the self‐reported streaming time did not change more strongly in the retrieval practice condition than in the copy condition, which is in line with Experiment 1 and does not support Hypothesis 3.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-32">Discussion Experiment 2</hd> <p>Results of Experiment 2 were similar to those of Experiment 1: We replicated a testing effect with a better final test performance concerning environmental knowledge in the retrieval practice condition compared to the copy condition, this time with a delay of two weeks. In addition, participants' environmental streaming attitude (i.e., their concern about the impact of individual streaming behaviour on global warming) was larger after than before the intervention. Thus, similar to Experiment 1, the intervention (independent from the learning condition) had positive effects on participants' attitude. However, and in contrast to Experiment 1, the self‐reported streaming time did not differ before and after the intervention. Most importantly, no interaction effect of the learning condition with test session on the environmental streaming attitude and the streaming time was found, as was the case for Experiment 1. This implies that acquiring environmental knowledge through retrieval practice did not influence attitudes and behaviours more than learning the same information by copying it. Methodological reasons for this lack of interaction effect, as potentially assumed in Experiment 1, can now be ruled out by the changes in Experiment 2.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-33">GENERAL DISCUSSION</hd> <p>In two experiments, we investigated whether retrieval practice influences the retention of environmental knowledge and whether this effect also generalizes to environment‐related attitudes and behaviour. In both experiments, participants in the retrieval practice condition outperformed those in the copy condition in a delayed final knowledge test. However, retrieval practice concerning environmental knowledge resulted neither in an increased attitude change nor in a stronger reduction of streaming behaviour compared to copying.</p> <p>The replication of the testing effect in both experiments highlights the potential of retrieval practice as effective learning method to acquire environmental knowledge for a longer time compared to another active control condition. The robust evidence of the benefit of retrieval practice for long‐term retention across diverse ages and learning settings (e.g., Adesope et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>]; Agarwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref111">3</reflink>]) underlines its potential value in formal ESD for knowledge acquisition of all stakeholders.</p> <p>Both experiments indicate that acquiring streaming‐related information was sufficient to induce attitude change in both conditions. These results are in line with previous studies that found an increased pro‐environmental attitude after an environmental knowledge intervention (e.g., Bradley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref112">11</reflink>]; Schmitz & da Rocha, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref113">57</reflink>]; Sellmann & Bogner, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref114">60</reflink>]). However, contrary to our hypotheses, the learning method did not influence attitudes differently.</p> <p>Concerning behaviour change, we found a reduction in streaming time in Experiment 1 for both conditions, whereas this change was not observed in Experiment 2. The contradicting results could be attributed to the methodological differences between the two experiments. In Experiment 1, the attitude and behaviour measures were assessed after the final test, whereas in Experiment 2 they were assessed before the final test. The final test items might have influenced response behaviour in Experiment 1, resulting in a lower self‐reported streaming time than before the measurement. However, in both experiments, streaming attitudes were more climate‐oriented after compared to before the intervention, independent of these methodological differences. This suggests that the order of the measurement instruments is unlikely to be the reason for differing effects on streaming time in both experiments. In principle, it is possible that the intervention had an effect for one week, but was not strong enough to have an effect beyond the two‐week period.</p> <p>The contradicting results on the session's impact on streaming behaviour could also result from the complexity of pro‐environmental behaviour, which is influenced by multiple, insufficiently understood factors (Bamberg & Möser, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref115">8</reflink>]; Klöckner, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref116">33</reflink>]). For example habits, strong predictors of behaviour (Klöckner, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref117">33</reflink>]; Rubenking & Bracken, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref118">54</reflink>]), play an important role in streaming behaviour, constantly reinforced by new entertainment formats (Rahat et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref119">47</reflink>]; Rubenking & Bracken, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref120">54</reflink>]). Changing habits through knowledge acquisition alone is challenging, as knowledge acquisition influences primarily reflective processes while habits are primarily driven by automatic processes (Verplanken & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref121">69</reflink>]). Therefore, interventions disrupting habits and encouraging sustainable actions are essential (Verplanken & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref122">69</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref123">71</reflink>]). Habit modification often occurs with changes in daily routines (Verplanken et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref124">68</reflink>]; Verplanken & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref125">69</reflink>]). The discrepancy in the effects of streaming behaviour between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 can also be attributed to the societal impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Experiment 1 was conducted during the pandemic's early months in May/June 2020. Thus, participants might have changed their daily routines, including their streaming behaviour, and were more sensitive to our intervention due to the pandemic's societal impact. In contrast, Experiment 2 occurred in the fall of 2022, when pandemic restrictions had eased and habits, including streaming behaviour, were well established (cf. Morren et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref126">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our other hypothesis that acquiring and retrieving environmental knowledge also impacts attitudes and behaviour more than copying the information was not confirmed, despite participants' improved recall performance after retrieval practice. One reason might be that the learning advantage in the retrieval practice condition (as compared to the copy condition) was not large enough to promote differing effects on attitude and behaviour. Using more difficult retrieval practice items in future research should result in higher retrieval effort, thereby increasing the differences in performance for the testing and the copy condition (Endres & Renkl, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref127">19</reflink>]). The absent spillover effect from knowledge to behaviour could also be attributed to the particular assessment of online streaming as habitual behaviour, which is usually less affected by informational interventions as mentioned above (cf. Steg & Vlek, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref128">62</reflink>]). Future research could investigate learning designs that involve prolonged engagement with the material in order to effectively challenge and change habitual behaviour (e.g., Hartley et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref129">29</reflink>]; Seger et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref130">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present research has implications for ESD and is especially relevant for educators and other people engaged in knowledge transfer. In spite of the limitations entailed by the lack of a spillover effect, we found that retrieval practice is a useful tool for ESD. Retrieval practice enhances long‐term retention, so that learners are more likely to remember key concepts and principles of sustainable development, fostering a better understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals (cf. UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref131">66</reflink>]) and the EU's Green Deal (European Commission, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref132">20</reflink>]). This can help to develop an intrinsic motivation to engage in sustainable behaviour, which is crucial for sustained behavioural changes (Otto et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref133">43</reflink>]; van der Linden, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref134">67</reflink>]). Furthermore, retrieval practice can help to practice the transfer of theoretical concepts to real‐world situations (Pan & Rickard, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref135">44</reflink>]), aligning with the goal of equipping learners with problem‐solving skills in ESD (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref136">66</reflink>]). Therefore, we recommend integrating retrieval practice as evidence‐based learning strategy into formal education programmes in the domain of ESD. People actively involved in educational work should be trained in evidence‐based teaching and learning methods. Still, our research also demonstrates that retrieval practice is no panacea in ESD, as habitual behaviour and attitudes were not differentially changed by retrieval practice. Accordingly, we recommend combining retrieval practice during knowledge acquisition with additional methods, such as implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref137">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref138">25</reflink>]; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref139">26</reflink>]) and commitments (Abrahamse et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref140">1</reflink>]), to foster significant attitudinal and behavioural changes.</p> <p>In conclusion, the replicated testing effect in both experiments emphasizes the effectiveness of retrieval practice in enhancing knowledge acquisition in formal ESD. Even though this might not always generalize to pro‐environmental attitudes and behaviours, retrieval practice promotes long‐term retention of environmental knowledge. Further research, integrating findings from instructional and environmental psychology is needed to provide additional evidence‐based recommendations to stakeholders of ESD. This could enhance the overall effectiveness of formal ESD for changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-34">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>We thank Valerie Weber for her support in data processing of Experiment 1. We also thank Maria Kießler and Nico Kruse for their help with data collection in Experiment 2. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-35">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>None of the authors have a conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0181057338-36">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The datasets and R scripts presented in this study can be found in online repositories: https://osf.io/3vfp4/.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0181057338-37"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Throughout this study, we use the term retrieval practice to refer to the benefit of testing for long‐term retention. Thus, retrieval practice covers the terms <emph>test‐enhanced learning</emph>, <emph>testing, quizzing</emph> and <emph>practice testing</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The delay between completing the first and second sessions was not recorded. This was changed in Experiment 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Leaving the outliers in the sample, we found no main effect of test session, <emph>F</emph>(1, 260) = 2.51, <emph>p</emph> = .114, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = .00, 90% <emph>CI</emph> [0.00, 0.04].</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181057338-38"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (3), 273 – 291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta‐analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87 (3), 659 – 701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1409 – 1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐021‐09595‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref80" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.601.956&rep=rep1&type=pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref81" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. https://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Akbulut, Y. (2024). Impact of different practice testing methods on learning outcomes. European Journal of Education, 59, e12626. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12626</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, J. B., & Impara, J. C. (1991). The impact of an environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22 (4), 36 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1991.9943060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref43" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta‐analysis of psycho‐social determinants of pro‐environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (1), 14 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref83" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barber, N., Taylor, C., & Strick, S. (2009). Wine consumers' environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase. International Journal of Wine Research, 1 (1), 59 – 72. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWR.S4649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2012). Environmental education for behaviour change: Which actions should be targeted? International Journal of Science Education, 34 (10), 1591 – 1614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.584079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley, J. C., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (3), 17 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 (5), 279 – 283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests to enhance 8th grade students' retention of U.S. history facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23 (6), 760 – 771. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collado, S., Rosa, C. D., & Corraliza, J. A. (2020). The effect of a nature‐based environmental education program on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors: A randomized experiment with primary schools. Sustainability, 12 (17), 6817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, G., Lee, J., Tsai, T., Kong, A., Deans, J., Johnson, B., & Jardim, E. (2017). Clicking clean: Who is winning clicking clean: Who is winning the race to build a green internet? https://<ulink href="http://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20170110%5fgreenpeace%5fclicking%5fclean.pdf">www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20170110%5fgreenpeace%5fclicking%5fclean.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14 (1), 4 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Efoui‐Hess, M. (2019). Climate crisis: the unsustainable use of online video: The practical case for digital sobriety. https://theshiftproject.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/07/2019‐02.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Endres, T., & Renkl, A. (2015). Mechanisms behind the testing effect: An empirical investigation of retrieval practice in meaningful learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Commission. (2024). The European Green Deal: Striving to be the first climate‐neutral continent. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy‐and‐policy/priorities‐2019‐2024/european‐green‐deal_en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.‐G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175 – 191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37 (8), 1597 – 1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geiger, S. M., Geiger, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2019). Environment‐specific vs. general knowledge and their role in pro‐environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 (1), 141 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54 (7), 493 – 503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.54.7.493</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065‐2601(06)38002‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P., 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 and Cognition, 3 (3), 177 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halamish, V., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution‐based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37 (4), 801 – 812. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartley, B. L., Thompson, R. C., & Pahl, S. (2015). Marine litter education boosts children's understanding and self‐reported actions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 90 (1–2), 209 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta‐analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331 (6018), 772 – 775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval‐based learning. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: v. 61. The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 237 – 284). Elsevier/Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐800283‐4.00007‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta‐analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 1028 – 1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution‐based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65 (2), 85 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakens, D., & Caldwell, A. R. (2019). Simulation‐based power‐analysis for factorial ANOVA designs. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/baxsf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiner, D. J. (2019). SoSci Survey. https://<ulink href="http://www.soscisurvey.de">www.soscisurvey.de</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LimeSurvey GmbH. (n.d.). LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool. <ulink href="http://www.limesurvey.org">http://www.limesurvey.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, J. M., Thompson, A. J., & Marshak, D. W. (2011). Testing to enhance retention in human anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 4 (5), 243 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19 (4–5), 494 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morren, M., Mol, J. M., Blasch, J. E., & Malek, Ž. (2021). Changing diets—Testing the impact of knowledge and information nudges on sustainable dietary choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75, 101610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mundt, D., Abel, R., & Hänze, M. (2020). Exploring the effect of testing on forgetting in vocabulary learning: An examination of the bifurcation model. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32 (2), 214 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1733584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neaman, A., Stange, C., Zabel, S., Minkina, T. M., Yáñez, C., Burnham, E., & Otto, S. (2021). Teaching soil science: The impact of laboratory and field components on the knowledge and attitude toward soil. Revista Brasileira de Ciência o Solo, 45, e0210040. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20210040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otto, S., Kaiser, F. G., & Arnold, O. (2014). The critical challenge of climate change for psychology. European Psychologist, 19 (2), 96 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016‐9040/a000182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test‐enhanced learning: Meta‐analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (7), 710 – 756. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preuit, R., & Yan, R. (2017). Fashion and sustainability:: Increasing knowledge about slow fashion through an educational module. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12 (5), 1139 – 1154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. https://www.R‐project.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rahat, M., Mojgani, J., Lethbridge, G., Al‐Bya, H., Patterson, B., Goldman Bergmann, C., & van Ameringen, M. (2022). Problematic video‐streaming: A short review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 48, 101232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (3), 181 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐6916.2006.00012.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test‐enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long‐term retention. Psychological Science, 17 (3), 249 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2006.01693.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In J. Mestre (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Cognition in Education, Vol. 55, pp. 1 – 36). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐387691‐1.00001‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roelle, J., Schweppe, J., Endres, T., Lachner, A., Aufschnaiter, C. v., Renkl, A., Eitel, A., Leutner, D., Rummer, R., Scheiter, K., & Vorholzer, A. (2022). Combining retrieval practice and generative learning in educational contexts. Zeitschrift Für Entwicklungspsychologie Und Pädagogische Psychologie, 54 (4), 142 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049‐8637/a000261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 (1), 233 – 239. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta‐analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (6), 1432 – 1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubenking, B., & Bracken, C. C. (2021). Binge watching and serial viewing: Comparing new media viewing habits in 2015 and 2020. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 14, 100356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Gerst, K., & Wagner, S. (2017). Is testing a more effective learning strategy than note‐taking? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 23 (3), 293 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schleyer‐Lindenmann, A., Ittner, H., Dauvier, B., & Piolat, M. (2018). Die NEP‐Skala—hinter den (deutschen) Kulissen des Umweltbewusstseins. Diagnostica, 64 (3), 156 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012‐1924/a000202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitz, G. L., & da Rocha, J. B. T. (2018). Environmental education program as a tool to improve children's environmental attitudes and knowledge. Education, 2 (8), 15 – 20. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.edu.20180802.01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwieren, J., Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2017). The testing effect in the psychology classroom: A meta‐analytic perspective. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16 (2), 179 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717695149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seger, B. T., Burkhardt, J., Straub, F., Scherz, S., & Nieding, G. (2023). Reducing the individual carbon impact of video streaming: A seven‐week intervention using information, goal setting, and feedback. Journal of Consumer Policy, 46, 137 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603‐023‐09536‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sellmann, D., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Effects of a 1‐day environmental education intervention on environmental attitudes and connectedness with nature. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 1077 – 1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212‐012‐0155‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song, Z., Zhang, X., & Eriksson, C. (2015). Data center energy and cost saving evaluation. Energy Procedia, 75, 1255 – 1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro‐environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (3), 309 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strydom, W. (2018). Applying the theory of planned behavior to recycling behavior in South Africa. Recycling, 3 (3), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SurveyCircle. (2023). Forschungswebseite SurveyCircle. https://<ulink href="http://www.surveycircle.com">www.surveycircle.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Shift Project. (2020). Carbonalyser. https://theshiftproject.org/en/carbonalyser‐browser‐extension/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Education 2030. UNESCO. https://<ulink href="http://www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2018‐08/unesco%5feducation%5ffor%5fsustainable%5fdevelopment%5fgoals.pdf">www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2018‐08/unesco%5feducation%5ffor%5fsustainable%5fdevelopment%5fgoals.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Linden, S. (2015). Intrinsic motivation and pro‐environmental behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 5 (7), 612 – 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2669</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., & Jurasek, M. (2008). Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self‐activation hypotheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (2), 121 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25 (1), 90 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.90</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weingarten, N., & Hartmann, M. (2023). Let's talk about straw: The effect of information provision on consumers' attitudes towards pig husbandry systems. British Food Journal, 125 (5), 1840 – 1853. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ‐03‐2022‐0299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83 (3), 22 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Daria Mundt; Nele Albrecht; Anita Körner and Mirjam Ebersbach</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref139"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450299
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Retrieval Practice in Education for Sustainable Development: Effects on Retention, Attitudes, and Self-Reported Streaming Behaviour
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daria+Mundt%22">Daria Mundt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0592-3771">0000-0003-0592-3771</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nele+Albrecht%22">Nele Albrecht</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anita+Körner%22">Anita Körner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3761-2118">0000-0003-3761-2118</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mirjam+Ebersbach%22">Mirjam Ebersbach</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainable+Development%22">Sustainable Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Retrieval%22">Information Retrieval</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Searching%22">Online Searching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reprography%22">Reprography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Testing%22">Comparative Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+Change%22">Attitude Change</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12735
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Education for Sustainable Development focuses on improving environmental knowledge to combat misinformation and promote sustainable behaviours. In two experiments, we investigated whether retrieval practice, known to foster lasting knowledge acquisition, is a useful tool for (1) increasing environmental knowledge and (2) for improving environmental attitudes and behaviour (i.e., spillover effect). Participants studied a text on the effects of online streaming behaviour by means of retrieval practice or by copying the text. Knowledge gain was assessed after one (Experiment 1) and two weeks (Experiment 2). Attitudes and behaviour were assessed pre- and post-intervention. In both experiments, participants recalled more environmental knowledge after retrieval practice compared to copying. Attitudes and behaviour did not differ between both groups, but attitudes increased after the intervention in both groups. Only Experiment 1 showed declining streaming times. Our findings suggest that retrieval practice enhances lasting knowledge acquisition but barely affects environmental attitudes and behaviour.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://osf.io/3vfp4
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450299
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450299
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12735
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sustainable Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Retrieval
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Searching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reprography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude Change
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Retrieval Practice in Education for Sustainable Development: Effects on Retention, Attitudes, and Self-Reported Streaming Behaviour
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daria Mundt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nele Albrecht
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anita Körner
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mirjam Ebersbach
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1