Enhancing lasting learning by generative drawing through integration of retrieval practice (Phase 2): The role of dosage and self-regulation
The main goal of the first project phase was to investigate the extent that the long-term benefits of generative drawing could be enhanced through the integration of retrieval practice. For this purpose, in the first project phase, we developed a closed-then-open-book format of generative drawing, in which learners engage in closed-book drawing first after they read a text passage, which requires them to try to retrieve the content of the text from memory while constructing their drawings. As retrieval is rarely perfect, we also implemented an open-book revision phase, which followed after the closed-book phase. In this revision phase, learners could revise their drawings with the help of the expository text. We compared this closed-then-open-book format of generative drawing to the established open-book format of generative drawing in which learners are not explicitly engaged in retrieval practice. Jointly, the results of the experiments of the first project phase so far show that integrating retrieval practice into generative drawing through a closed-then-open-book format can foster learning outcomes compared to the established open-book format. Closed-then-open-book drawing can evidently be more effective than open-book drawing, at least when achieved drawing quality and hence mental model quality is the same between the drawing formats. However, these benefits were found only for the 2-week-delayed posttest but not for the 8-week-delayed posttest. Thus, the newly developed closed-then-open-book format has yet to show that it fosters lasting learning as defined in the research unit. From a theoretical view, two promising directions to further optimize the integration of retrieval practice into generative drawing to foster lasting learning are (a) increasing the dosage of retrieval practice by using the closed-then-open-book format as a successive relearning format and (b) increasing the degree to which learners can engage in retrieval practice in a self-regulated manner. Therefore, in the second project phase we will investigate the effects of the outlined potential optimizations through (a) successive relearning (i.e., increasing the dosage of retrieval practice and implementing (more) spacing) and (b) a flexible-closed-open-switch format, which increases the degree of self-regulation during retrieval practice. Our three main research questions are: (1) Does the closed-then-open-book format foster lasting learning in comparison to the open-book format when the formats are used in successive relearning? (2) Does a flexible closed-open-switch format foster lasting learning compared to the closed-then-open-book format? (3) Does an informed intervention increase the effectiveness of a flexible-closed-open-switch format?
Click here to see our team.
Preprints/Submissions
2026
Klimovich, M., Kubik, V., & Richter, T. (2026). Interleaved practice as a tool for scientific concept formation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Klimovich, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Richter, T. (2026). Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lenk-Blochowitz, A., Rummer, R., Glim, S. & Schweppe, J. (2025). Retrieval practice and the impact of text complexity: A field experiment on lasting learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ludwig, A., Ebersbach, M., & Scharf, F. (2026). The difficulty to evoke the spacing effect in mathematics: New findings and theoretical considerations. Manuscript submitted for publication].
Nemeth, L., Borromeo Ferri, R., & Lipowsky, F. (2026). Interleaving video artifacts to foster pre-service teachers’ ability to classify students’ modelling activities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Scheitz, N., Nemeth, L., & Ritz, J. (2026). Learning opportunities for adaptive subtraction strategy use in German grade 3 mathematics textbooks: Task types, sequencing, and strategy reflection. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schweppe, J., Johannes, C., & Pucher, M. (2026). Effects of different types of feedback on text-based learning with practice tests. Manuscript submitted for publication.
2025
Kim, S., Abel, R., Leutner, D., Schmiemann, P., & Roelle, J. (2025). Can the effects of generative drawing on lasting learning be optimized through integration of retrieval practice? Learning and Instruction, 98, Article 102143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102143 (open access)
Leutner, D., & Biele, J. (2025). Without integration everything is nothing – A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of instructional support for drawing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10067-7 (open access)
Obergassel, N., Renkl, A., Endres, T., Nückles, M., Carpenter, S. K., & Roelle, J. (2025). Combining generative tasks and retrieval tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000949 (open access)
Roelle, J., & Richter, T. (2025). Üben aus lernpsychologischer Sicht: Wie kann Üben das nachhaltige Lernen fördern? [Practice from the perspective of the psychology of learning: How can practice promote lasting learning?]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 53, 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-025-00227-7 (open access)
2024
Abel, R., de Bruin, A. B. H., Onan, E., & Roelle, J. (2024). Why do learners (under)utilize interleaving in learning confusable categories? The role of metastrategic knowledge and utility value of distinguishing. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09902-0 (open access)
Abel, R., Roelle, J., & Stadtler, M. (2024). Whom to believe? Fostering source evaluation skills with interleaved presentation of untrustworthy and trustworthy social media sources. Discourse Processes, 61(4–5), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2024.2339733
Grund, A., Fries, S., Nückles, M., Renkl, A., & Roelle, J. (2024). When is learning “effortful”? Scrutinizing the concept of mental effort in cognitively-oriented research from a motivational perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09852-7 (open access)
2023
Roelle, J., Endres, T., Abel, R., Obergassel, N., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2023). Happy together? On the relationship between research on retrieval practice and generative learning using the case of follow-up learning tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09810-9 (open access)
2022
Roelle, J., & Nückles, M. (2022). Zwei auf einen Streich? Der Nutzen der Integration von Abrufübung in Aufgaben zur Verständnisförderung [Two in one go? The benefits of integrating retrieval practice into generative learning tasks]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 50, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-021-00134-7
Roelle, J., Endres, T., & Renkl, A. (2022). Wie können Abrufübungen (nicht) für das Lernen in Schule und Hochschule relevant gemacht werden? Einleitung zur Thematik des Thementeils [How can retrieval practice (not) be made relevant for learning in school and higher education? Introduction]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 50, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-021-00139-2
Roelle, J., Froese*, L., Krebs*, R., Obergassel*, O., & Waldeyer*, J. (2022). Sequence matters! Retrieval practice before generative learning is more effective than the reverse order. Learning and Instruction, 80, Article 101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101634
Roelle, J., Schweppe, J., Endres, T., Lachner, A., von Aufschnaiter, C., Renkl, A., Eitel. A., Leutner D., Rummer, R., Scheiter, K., & Vorholzer, A. (2022). Combining retrieval practice and generative learning in educational contexts: Promises and challenges. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie [German Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology], 54(4), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000261 (open access)
Go to main page
