Combining Generative Tasks and Retrieval Tasks
Saved in:
| Title: | Combining Generative Tasks and Retrieval Tasks |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Niklas Obergassel (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Educational Psychology. 2025 117(6):980-997. |
| Availability: | American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Learning Activities, Sequential Approach, College Students, Foreign Countries, Instructional Effectiveness, Retention (Psychology), Comprehension |
| Geographic Terms: | Germany |
| DOI: | 10.1037/edu0000949 |
| ISSN: | 0022-0663 1939-2176 |
| Abstract: | Both tasks designed to elicit generative activities (i.e., generative tasks) and tasks designed to elicit retrieval activities (i.e., retrieval tasks) can substantially foster learning after an initial study phase in which learners encountered new content. More specifically, in line with the theoretical notion that generative tasks serve the function of fostering the construction of mental representations, generative tasks have been found to substantially foster comprehension, whereas retrieval tasks, in line with the theoretical notion that retrieval practice fosters the consolidation of mental representations in memory, have been found to foster retention. In view of these complementary functions, it is surprising that, to date, it has scarcely been investigated whether these tasks can be combined to good effects. Likewise, potential sequence effects, that is, whether engaging learners in generative tasks first (i.e., generative-first sequence) or in retrieval tasks first (i.e., retrieval-first sequence) would matter, have widely been ignored. The present study was designed to address these open issues. In a preregistered experiment with N = 340 university students, we varied whether learners engaged in generative tasks, retrieval tasks, both types of tasks (in two different sequences), or restudy tasks after an initial study phase. The combination of generative and retrieval tasks resulted in better retention than generative tasks as well as in better comprehension than retrieval tasks. No sequence effects were observed. We conclude that, regardless of the sequence, the combination of generative tasks and retrieval tasks is more effective than providing learners with either type of task alone. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Notes: | https://osf.io/u46c9 |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1506964 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Both tasks designed to elicit generative activities (i.e., generative tasks) and tasks designed to elicit retrieval activities (i.e., retrieval tasks) can substantially foster learning after an initial study phase in which learners encountered new content. More specifically, in line with the theoretical notion that generative tasks serve the function of fostering the construction of mental representations, generative tasks have been found to substantially foster comprehension, whereas retrieval tasks, in line with the theoretical notion that retrieval practice fosters the consolidation of mental representations in memory, have been found to foster retention. In view of these complementary functions, it is surprising that, to date, it has scarcely been investigated whether these tasks can be combined to good effects. Likewise, potential sequence effects, that is, whether engaging learners in generative tasks first (i.e., generative-first sequence) or in retrieval tasks first (i.e., retrieval-first sequence) would matter, have widely been ignored. The present study was designed to address these open issues. In a preregistered experiment with N = 340 university students, we varied whether learners engaged in generative tasks, retrieval tasks, both types of tasks (in two different sequences), or restudy tasks after an initial study phase. The combination of generative and retrieval tasks resulted in better retention than generative tasks as well as in better comprehension than retrieval tasks. No sequence effects were observed. We conclude that, regardless of the sequence, the combination of generative tasks and retrieval tasks is more effective than providing learners with either type of task alone. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0022-0663 1939-2176 |
| DOI: | 10.1037/edu0000949 |
