Generation Effect – Center for Teaching and Learning /ctl Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:46:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 /ctl/wp-content/uploads/sites/88/2024/01/cropped-android-chrome-512x512-1-32x32.png Generation Effect – Center for Teaching and Learning /ctl 32 32 Generative and retrieval tasks: Does the sequence matter and do sequence effects depend on learning task delay? /ctl/generative-and-retrieval-tasks-does-the-sequence-matter-and-do-sequence-effects-depend-on-learning-task-delay/ Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:46:41 +0000 /ctl/?p=5829 This 2026 study investigated whether the order in which students complete generative tasks (like generating their own examples of concepts) and retrieval tasks (like cued recall) affects learning outcomes. Using a 3×2 experimental design with 208 university students, the researchers compared three task sequences — generative-before-retrieval, retrieval-before-generative, and restudy-before-generative — under two timing conditions: completing tasks immediately after an initial study phase or completing them two days later. Students were tested one week after finishing the learning tasks on both retention and comprehension of four psychology concepts.

]]> This 2026 study investigated whether the order in which students complete generative tasks (like generating their own examples of concepts) and retrieval tasks (like cued recall) affects learning outcomes. Using a 3×2 experimental design with 208 university students, the researchers compared three task sequences — generative-before-retrieval, retrieval-before-generative, and restudy-before-generative — under two timing conditions: completing tasks immediately after an initial study phase or completing them two days later. Students were tested one week after finishing the learning tasks on both retention and comprehension of four psychology concepts.

The study found that the order of generative and retrieval tasks generally made little difference to learning outcomes. The one notable exception was that retrieval task performance was significantly better for the generative-before-retrieval group when a two-day delay was involved, likely because those students used the open-book generative task as an opportunity to re-engage with the material first.

Key Takeaways

  • Order of activities matters less than you might think. You can feel free to sequence generative activities (discussions, example-generation, concept mapping) and retrieval activities (quizzes, recall prompts) in whatever order suits your course design.
  • Retrieval practice still outperforms restudy for retention. Replacing quizzes or recall activities with simply re-reading course material is ineffective. Students who only reread retained significantly less after one week. Low-stakes quizzes and retrieval activities remain worth keeping.
  • Task design quality matters more than sequence. The authors note that earlier research finding sequence effects likely reflected a poorly designed generative task (no feedback, no revision opportunity). When both task types are well-designed with feedback built in, sequence effects largely disappear. This is a reminder that how activities are designed is more important than their order.

Read the full article here:

Obergassel, N., Renkl, A., Endres, T., Nückles, M., Carpenter, S. K., & Roelle, J. (2026). Generative and retrieval tasks: Does the sequence matter and do sequence effects depend on learning task delay? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 40(2), e70188. 

]]> Don’t Just Learn It, 91ÌÒÉ« It. /ctl/dont-just-learn-it-apply-it/ Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:56:34 +0000 /ctl/?p=3518 Why should you care about a 1980 study on analogies? Because it still explains why students don’t always transfer what they’ve learned to new situations—and what we can do about it.

In this classic paper, Mary Gick and Keith Holyoak showed that people often fail to apply a known solution from one context (like a military story) to another (a medical problem) unless they’re cued to see the connection.

]]> Why should you care about a 1980 study on analogies? Because it still explains why students don’t always transfer what they’ve learned to new situations—and what we can do about it.

In this classic paper, Mary Gick and Keith Holyoak showed that people often fail to apply a known solution from one context (like a military story) to another (a medical problem) unless they’re cued to see the connection.

When participants generated their own solutions to the initial story (Experiment 3), they were far more likely to remember and apply it later—a great example of the generation effect: we remember and reuse what we’ve actively created ourselves.

Takeaways for teaching:

  • Don’t assume transfer happens automatically. Students may understand content but fail to recognize when it applies elsewhere.
  • Make the connections visible. Prompt them to compare examples and identify the shared underlying principle.
  • Use the generation effect. Ask students to come up with their own examples, solutions, or analogies before showing them yours—this deepens encoding and boosts later transfer.
  • Vary the surface details. Present multiple examples that look different but rely on the same concept to strengthen analogical mapping.

In short: learning sticks—and transfers—when students actively build and revisit their own mental bridges between ideas.

Read the full article online:

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355. 

]]>