Instructional Science

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 239–255 | Cite as

A specific benefit of retrieval-based concept mapping to enhance learning from texts

  • Juana M. Ortega-TudelaEmail author
  • M. Teresa Lechuga
  • Carlos J. Gómez-Ariza
Original Research


Research has shown that retrieval activities, that is, actively recalling previously studied information, may substantially contribute to learning from complex educational materials, sometimes more so than other more popular techniques such as rereading and elaborative study. In this context, recent studies (Blunt and Karpicke, J Educ Psychol 106:849–858, 2014) have reported that two different retrieval formats (free recall by writing down as many ideas as possible and creating a concept map in the absence of texts) are equally effective as learning tools. Given the benefits frequently attributed to concept mapping and the potential practical implications of this finding, we aimed to further examine the relative effectiveness of both retrieval-based activities. In Experiment 1, we conceptually replicated the main finding from Blunt and Karpicke’s study to show that the two formats may lead to similar learning outcomes. In Experiment 2, we coupled both retrieval formats but manipulated the order in which the activities were performed. Results revealed that retrieval-based concept mapping before free recall by means of paragraph writing resulted in better learning on a 2-week delayed test than performing the same activities the other way round. These findings contradict the general idea that it is retrieval itself, regardless of the activity it is embedded in, what promotes learning. From a more applied standpoint, our results join others from recent studies to show that combining different retrieval activities when dealing with educational materials might be particularly effective.


Retrieval practice Testing effect Conceptual learning Concept mapping 



The current study was completed thanks to financial support by a grant from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad to Carlos J. Gómez-Ariza (PSI2015-65502-C2-2-P).

Supplementary material

11251_2018_9476_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
11251_2018_9476_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)
11251_2018_9476_MOESM3_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 15 kb)
11251_2018_9476_MOESM4_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 30 kb)


  1. Álvarez, M., & Fernández, R. (1999). Cuestionario de Hábitos y Técnicas de Estudio, CHTE. Madrid: TEA.Google Scholar
  2. Bacon, F. (1620; 2000). Francis Bacon: The New Organon. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bae, C. L., Therriault, D. J., & Redifer, J. L. (2018). Investigating the testing effect: Retrieval as a characteristic of effective study strategies. Learning and Instruction. Scholar
  4. Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 849–858. Scholar
  5. Bouwmeester, S., & Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. (2011). Why do some children benefit more from testing than others? Gist trace processing to explain the testing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridger, E. K., Herron, J. E., Elward, R. L., & Wilding, E. L. (2009). Neural correlates of individual differences in strategic retrieval processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1175–1186.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563–1569. Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, S. K., & Yeung, K. L. (2017). The role of mediator strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 128–141. Scholar
  10. Chevron, M. P. (2014). A metacognitive tool: Theoretical and operational analysis of skills exercised in structured Concept Maps. Perspectives in Science. Scholar
  11. 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, 4–58. Scholar
  12. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory and Cognition, 40, 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimaldi, P. J., Poston, L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2015). How does creating a concept map affect item-specific encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1049–1061.Google Scholar
  15. Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herron, J. E., & Wilding, E. L. (2004). An electrophysiological dissociation of retrieval mode and retrieval orientation. NeuroImage, 22, 1554–1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 157–163. Scholar
  18. Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. In J. Wixted (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (Vol. 2, J. H. vByrne, Series Edition). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Concept mapping. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 351–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. Scholar
  21. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 401–418. Scholar
  23. Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: An episodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 237–284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 17–29. Scholar
  25. 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, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lechuga, M. T., Ortega-Tudela, J. M., & Gómez-Ariza, C. J. (2015). Further evidence that concept mapping is not better than repeated retrieval as a tool for learning from texts. Learning and Instruction, 40, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lehman, M., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: Dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1787–1794.Google Scholar
  28. McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The Read–Recite–Review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20, 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mintzes, J. J., Canas, A., Coffey, J., Gorman, J., Gurley, L., Hoffman, R., et al. (2011). Comment on “Retrieval Practice produces more learning than elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping”. Science, 334, 453. Scholar
  30. Morton, N. W., & Polyn, S. M. (2016). A predictive framework for evaluating models of semantic organization in free recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 119–140. Scholar
  31. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved February 18, from
  33. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nunes, L. D., & Karpicke, J. D. (2015). Retrieval-based learning: Research at the interface between cognitive science and education. In R. A. Scott & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–16). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Quinn, H., Mintzes, J., & Laws, R. A. (2003). Successive concept mapping: Assessing understanding in college science classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 12–17.Google Scholar
  36. Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Carpenter, S. K. (2015). Does the benefit of testing depend on lag, and if so, why? Evaluating the elaborative retrieval hypothesis. Memory and Cognition, 43, 619–633. Scholar
  37. Repetto, E., Sutil, I., & Manzano, N. (2004). Comprender y aprender en el aula. Programa para la integración en el curriculum de las estrategias de comprensión lectora. UNED.Google Scholar
  38. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. Scholar
  39. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. Scholar
  40. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406–412. Scholar
  41. Rosburg, T., Johansson, M., Sprondel, V., & Mecklinger, A. (2014). Retrieving self-vocalized information: An event-related potential (ERP) study on the effect of retrieval orientation. Brain and Cognition, 92C, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. Scholar
  43. Rugg, M. D., & Wilding, E. L. (2000). Retrieval processing and episodic memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stenberg, G., Johansson, M., & Rosén, I. (2006). Conceptual and perceptual memory: Retrieval orientations reflected in event-related potentials. Acta Psychologica, 122, 174–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vanides, J., Yin, Y., Tomita, M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2005). Using concept maps in the science classroom. Science Scope, 28(8), 27–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PedagogyUniversity of JaénJaénSpain
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of JaénJaénSpain

Personalised recommendations