Retrieval Practice for Improving Long-Term Retention in Anatomical Education: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is generally assumed by students that learning takes place during repeated episodes of rereading and rote memorization of course materials. Over the past few decades, however, research has increasingly indicated that the said notion can and should be enhanced with learning paradigms such as retrieval practice (RP). RP occurs when students practice retrieving their consolidated semantic memories by informally testing themselves. This strategy results in the re-encoding and re-consolidation of existing semantic memories, thus strengthening their schemas. The purpose of this quasi-experimental design was to assess the effects of the implementation of RP on student performance on the final exam in a large, undergraduate Gross Anatomy course. It was hypothesized that student participation in RP during class would improve their performance on the final exam in the course. The participants ( N = 248) were mainly in Life Sciences, Kinesiology, and Physical Education programs. They answered RP questions using TopHat©, an online educational software platform. The results of this study indicated that student performance on the final exam was enhanced when students engaged in RP. It was concluded that the use of RP effectively enhances learning and long-term retention of semantic memory. In addition to the traditional testing ‘of’ learning, teachers are encouraged to implement testing, in the form of RP, in their classrooms ‘for’ learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it