In experiments relating to the effect of recall on learning the procedure is essentially to vary the presentation of the learning material so that the amount of recitation is controlled. Under these conditions most investigators, e.g. Abbott (i) or Trow (7), have found that learning is more efficient with recitation than without it, and have offered two general types of explanation for this finding. According to the first, represented by Skaggs ( 5), recitation shows a subject where his learning is incomplete, and thus gives him greater opportunity than reading to check on his errors. It also offers him more incentive to perfect his learning, and may afford less retroactive inhibition. The second explanation, suggested by Gates (3), among others, depends on the fact that learning is tested by reproduction. Since recitation involves reproduction, the significant responses are practised in recitation more than in reading, and this exercise is considered to be the most important factor concerned in the effect of recall.It would be very difficult to find a crucial test of these theories when recitation is introduced into the learning period. In the present experiment the learning period was the same for all subjects; recalls were introduced during the seven days following it. Evidence will be presented which indicates that neither of the explanations suggested is adequate to account for all the effects of recall.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.