The encoding specificity principle (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) states that for a retrieval cue to be useful, it should be present at the encoding stage. The encoding stage is the initial stage of the learning process; in a classroom, it is when new material is taught to students. Therefore, according to Tulving and Thomson, if we want to use a retrieval cue in the future, that cue should be including in the initial presentation of the information. Not all academics, however, agree on this point. Perhaps more effective than arguing whether it is true or not is to identify different factors which can determine how recallable information is from long term memory—let’s examine the evidence!
To this end, Kathleen McDermott and Henry Roediger advise, “The key to good retrieval is developing effective cues that will lead the remember-er back to the encoded information” (2014). Teachers can do this by carefully considering the cues they provide students at the encoding and retrieval stages of the learning process.
For example, a teacher could intentionally include a visual image when introducing and explaining a new concept to the class. The image can be discussed, with questions asked and further supporting materials (such as a video or textbook) can accompany the image to help students encode the new information. After some time has passed, the teacher will need to find out what students can recall from long-term memory about the previously covered content. To do this, the teacher can provide a retrieval practice task for the class to complete. While this could involve questions or quizzing, an alternative would be cued recall. The cue provided could be the previously used image; it is familiar to students and may trigger memories and information from the previous lesson. This is harnessing the encoding specificity principle in the classroom.
Even if retrieval cues are not identical to those used at the encoding stage, there should be relevance and a clear connection. It is important retrieval cues are not obscure or abstract. Having retrieval cues does little good if they are unrelated to the target memory or result in irrelevant information being recalled! If cues are only vaguely related or “weak,” they can fail (Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2015). Naturally, retrieval cues will vary in their strength and ability to support recall. This can depend on various factors, but the key is to ensure there is a clear link between retrieval cues used and the information or the images provided at the encoding stage.
Another strategy to strengthen the use of retrieval cues is through employing elaborative questioning. This involves learners explaining (or “elaborating” on) why a fact or concept is true—often then relying on further prior knowledge and strengthening connections between concepts (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Using elaborative techniques in the encoding stage can have benefits because students can associate the taught material to multiple cues later at the retrieval stage.
There is a further caveat on the utility of retrieval cues: the cue overload principle (Watkins, 1975). This suggests that a retrieval cue can lose its effectiveness when it is linked to extraneous information. That is, the more memories that are associated with a specific cue, the less effective that cue will be when trying to recall a specific target memory.
If too many retrieval cues are provided then the challenge of retrieval practice is diluted and therefore not as effective. There is no set amount in terms of how much support is provided with a retrieval cue, this is where the teacher must use their professional judgement and expertise. If a class or individual member of the class is struggling with retrieval practice, then further cues (such as keywords written on the board or a verbal prompt from the teacher) can be provided. If the retrieval task is proving to be easy for students to complete, then it is likely there has been cue overload as there is a lack of challenge, therefore the cues should be reduced or removed.
Ultimately, whether retrieval cues must be present when new information is encoded can be explored through additional research. For teachers in classrooms, it’s perhaps more important (and more useful) to understand why exactly that may or may not be the case. Through the considerations outlined here, teachers can decide how or when to apply the encoding specificity principle to their teaching—and, regardless, how to use retrieval cues effectively.
The Great Teaching Toolkit is designed to help teachers understand the “mechanisms” underlying principles of teaching and learning, aligned with characteristics of effective professional development. Through courses, resources, feedback tools, and collaborative frameworks, teachers can learn about strategies like using retrieval cues and elaboration to adapt and implement them in their practice.
Find out how The Great Teaching Toolkit can power your professional development—or create a free starter account today!
References
Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2015). Memory. Psychology Press.
McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2014). Memory (Encoding, Storage, Retrieval). www.nobaproject.com
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020071
Watkins, M. J. (1975). Inhibition in recall with extralist “cues.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 294–303.
