Cognitive engagement deepens when students reconstruct knowledge through retrieval practice rather than re-read or re-watch material. Testing is one method of retrieval, but retrieval is much more than a test at the end of instruction to check memory; it is the mental work during learning that actually strengthens memory. In a competency-based environment, where progress depends on evidence rather than seat time, that distinction matters. Activities like highlighting, re-reading, or re-watching often create a feeling of fluency because the content seems familiar. But that fluency is an illusion. What learners need are routines and strategies that generate durable knowledge and transferable skills. These routines are anchored in the act of recalling and using ideas from memory.

Decades of research explain why retrieval changes outcomes. When learners try to pull information from memory, the attempt itself reshapes the memory, making it stronger and more accessible later. In one widely cited study, Karpicke and Blunt (2011) demonstrated that practicing retrieval produced greater gains in meaningful learning over using elaborative studying strategies with concept mapping. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) showed that tests do not merely measure learning; they can cause learning, especially when there is a delay before the final assessment. Repeated, spaced attempts to retrieve knowledge with feedback, often called successive relearning, are especially potent because each well-timed struggle to retrieve, followed by quick correction, nudges knowledge toward long-term retention. The practical lesson is straightforward: first retrieve, then re-study, paying focused attention to the knowledge that was most difficult to retrieve. Keeping these phases separate produces diagnostic evidence for teachers and a more powerful memory update for students.

Because retrieval is an important form of active cognitive engagement, it should run through the fabric of instruction rather than wait until “the test.” In practice, that means designing short, frequent opportunities for students to explain, solve, classify, or generate from a blank start before any scaffolds appear. After the attempt, teachers offer concise feedback and, later, schedule another brief pass at the same target. Over time, these small episodes accumulate into strong evidence of competence. This approach fits cleanly with competency-based education: if CBE asks us to certify what learners can do, our daily routines must regularly ask them to do the thinking.

As Henry Roediger put it, “Judicious use of testing may improve performance in educational settings at all levels.” The key word is judicious. When assessments are brief, low-stakes, feedback-rich, cumulative, and spaced over time, they become engines of learning rather than high-pressure gatekeepers. A typical sequence begins with a no-notes prompt that asks learners to retrieve knowledge of current and prior targets, followed by an immediate feedback session that includes a review of the correct information and a short explanation. Students then revisit the same ideas after twenty-four to seventy-two hours, and then again about a week later. In this rhythm, evidence is used primarily to locate status in the learning progression represented in the proficiency scale and to show growth across attempts. It is not to render a one-shot verdict.

These routines translate naturally into CBE evidence streams. Planned “obtrusive” moments might include a ninety-second brain dump, a blank-page explanation, or a micro teach-back—each one short enough to fit inside a lesson but substantial enough to reveal the state of a learner’s understanding. “Unobtrusive” evidence emerges in everyday work such as exit slips completed from memory or quick oral explanations that capture what changed since the last attempt. Student-centered evidence grows as learners create their own interleaved practice sets, schedule spaced reviews, or record one-take explainers from a blank storyboard while rating their independence against the scale descriptors. Across these settings, the teacher’s move is consistent: invite an honest attempt from memory first, then add just-in-time support.

Proficiency scales provide a clear scaffold for targeting retrieval. At Level 2.0, retrieval focuses on accurate recall of terms, steps, properties, and criteria, often demonstrated by labeling a diagram, outlining a procedure, or generating examples and non-examples from memory. At Level 3.0, the emphasis shifts to unaided application in typical contexts: solving, analyzing, or summarizing from a blank start and then comparing the work to the scale descriptors. At Level 4.0, learners adapt or generalize ideas to novel situations, justify method selection across mixed cases, or teach concepts to a new audience using original analogies—all of which rely on retrieving and reorganizing knowledge rather than recognizing it on a page. As Mark A. McDaniel notes, “Material that has been quizzed leads to greater transfer to new questions than material that was reread,” underscoring why retrieval is the right lever for Level 3.0 application and Level 4.0 transfer.

Four design principles keep implementation tight and observable. First, plan for spacing. Revisit targets after a day or two and again about a week later. Put those “spiral hits” on the calendar so they actually happen. Second, interleave related skills so students must choose the right method rather than simply apply the most recent one. Third, insist on generation before feedback: begin from a blank prompt, asking learners not to use notes or checklists until the initial attempt is complete. Then show them a worked example and have students annotate where help became necessary. Fourth, keep the stakes low and the frequency high. Many tiny retrievals cultivate a culture where errors are treated as data and learners track their movement toward independence.

For administrators, these principles translate into concrete look-fors during walk-throughs. You will see short retrieval routines that sample current and prior targets; you will notice calendars or trackers that schedule spaced revisits; you will hear students attempt first and then receive quick, accurate feedback; and you will find evidence logged against 2.0/3.0/4.0 descriptors with prompts fading over time as independence rises. When those conditions are in place, retrieval functions as everyday cognitive engagement rather than an occasional event.

In sum, retrieval is the thinking that strengthens memory. Build it in, space it out, and keep it cumulative. When tests are used judiciously—as brief, feedback-rich checkpoints woven into instruction—they amplify learning and yield credible, scale-aligned evidence of competence. The result is fewer illusions of learning, more durable understanding, and a clearer picture of what students can actually do.

If you are interested in discussing retrieval practice and other cognitive theories, join the Learning Hub and post in the Community Channels, register to attend an office hour, or send a direct message to the Learning Hub Faculty. 

Next week's Friday Blog will focus on "use-it-tomorrow" strategies you can bring directly to your classroom to support using retrieval in your classroom.

References
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Science: Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition: The critical importance of retrieval for learning.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Psychological Science: Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention.

McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Applied Cognitive Psychology: Generalizing test-enhanced learning.

McDaniel, M. A., & Little, J. L. (2019). Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Multiple-choice testing effects and transfer.