The Effect of Retrieval Practice After Sleep on Student Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How educators can improve retention and learning of course material, especially in the anatomical sciences, is a topic of growing concern. It has been shown, both within controlled experimental scenarios and within classroom settings, that information retrieval through repeated practice testing, as opposed to repeated studying, is an efficient way of enhancing information retention and recall. In addition, it has been shown that sleep, a few hours after learning, enhances future retrieval of both declarative and procedural memory. Having previously implemented retrieval practice in third year human anatomy laboratories, we wondered if the inclusion of retrieval practice the morning after students learned new material, would result in an additional benefit to students' retention and recall. Students were to review the new material presented in that day's lecture a few hours before bed and complete a series of questions, on the material reviewed, that they could access and answer online. The next morning, the students were provided with an additional set of questions on the material learned the previous day. They were also provided with feedback that allowed them to compare their responses to the correct answers. With data collection ongoing, comparisons in midterm and final, written and laboratory examinations will be made between students who participated in laboratory retrieval practice only and students who, in addition, participated in retrieval practice after sleep. This will allow us to test whether retrieval practice after sleep enhances learning over and above that seen with regular retrieval practice. As previous studies have tested immediate retrieval practice (at the end of lecture), the inclusion of an initial retrieval test after sleep could have important implications for the timing of the commencement of retrieval practice. In addition, we will be able to test the effects of sleep consolidation alone by comparing students' performance on the quiz taken the same night as the material is reviewed and the quiz taken the next morning after sleep.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".