Read Recite Review

| Read-Recite-Review… Remember| A critical analysis; 3R Study strategy| | Nicole Turnbull| | | Transition to University Study – SSS021 Roy Sanders 13 March 2013 Transition to University Study – SSS021 Roy Sanders 13 March 2013 Mark A. McDonald, Daniel C. Howard and Gillies O. Einstein (2009). The Read-Recite-Review Study: Effective and Portable. A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Vol 20 No 4, 516 – 522.
There are numerous strategies used by students for learning and recalling information from various sources of educational texts. The paper (Mark A. McDonald, 2009) provides evidence why the study strategy; 3R Read-Recite-Review produces mnemonic benefits that exceed those of note-taking and rereading. Two experiments were conducted, students were instructed to learn specific pieces of text using either; reread only (control group), read and take notes (control group) or follow the process of the read-recite-review strategy.
The effectiveness and efficiency of the study strategies were assessed by timing the time taken to complete the reading process and by comparing the results of immediate and delayed testing which utilised free call, multiple choice and short answers to check the amount of information retained. Experiment 1 required students to read factual, simple and short passages which proved that the 3R strategy was more effective using free call of information both immediately and delayed, however these benefits did not show in the results for both multiple choice nd short answer tests. Experiment 2 involved students reading longer and more complex passages, results supported those found in experiment 1. Additionally the second experiment found 3R beneficial over rereading for both multiple choice and problem solving. The results from both experiments concluded that the 3R strategy may promote a deep learning of materials, having benefits beyond improving retention. The study clearly demonstrated that the 3R strategy is an efficient and effective study strategy when used in a controlled laboratory setting.

However, the study was unable to establish if the motivation level of students would weaken the processing benefits of the strategy. As Daniel, Howard and Einstein state if learners are in a more motivating setting and consequently are more conscientious in their study activities, would the effects of 3R be attenuated? The experiments were performed using psychology students who participated either as part of a course requirement or for money, however students in all fields of study utilise study strategies.
The motivation of students is again questioned as the I believe the personal benefit would be greater in a real life setting as opposed to receiving a monetary value to participate with no personal impact from the result achieved. Therefore I think the study should be repeated using a range of students from various courses/fields of study, using more real life motivators. In addition, I suggest testing the 3R strategy using spaced presentations of learning materials as opposed to information being presented in one sitting in order to test the effectiveness on longer term retention.