Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Evidence-based practice in education is the implementation of research-supported teaching tools to enhance students’ learning. Retrieval practice is among the top performing learning techniques in scientific literature, with decades of research supporting its incorporation in educational contexts. Testing enhances posterior performance of the studied material, compared with restudying for an equivalent amount of time. Its benefits extend beyond long-term retention: it diminishes anxiety, fosters learning transfer, and reduces the negative consequences of acute stress on memory retrieval, among other desirable outcomes. Its implementation is inexpensive as it requires only minimal supplies. Despite research indicating the potential of retrieval practice to significantly improve student learning, this technique is rarely implemented in music education contexts. The main objective of this work is to propose the incorporation of retrieval practice in jazz performance education. The article outlines a description of retrieval practice, characterizes optimal conditions for its application, and provides step-by-step examples of its use in the classroom.

Keywords

evidence-based education jazz improvisation jazz pedagogy learning strategies music pedagogy retrieval practice

The way I teach is memory plus improvisation

—Joe Henderson

Retrieval practice is an empirically tested learning technique in which students deliberately recall or remember information instead of rereading or rehearing (Bjork et al., 2013; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Roediger & Butler, 2011). In simple words, retrieval practice is the same as taking a test. Decades of research indicate that the act of retrieving enhances posterior performance of the studied material, compared with restudying for an equivalent amount of time (Roediger & Butler, 2011). This phenomenon was first reported more than a hundred years ago (Abbott, 1909; Gates, 1917; Thorndike, 1914) and is called testing effect (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Nowadays, retrieval practice is considered among the learning techniques with the most impact on long-term retention and transfer (Adesope et al., 2017; Carpenter et al., 2022; Dunlosky et al., 2013).

Historically, teachers and students have viewed tests as devices to specifically assess learning, and not necessarily to foster or enhance it. One could argue that most teachers and students perceive testing to be an undesirable requirement in educational systems. These narratives obscure the fact that testing not only boosts learning, but also decreases anxiety (Agarwal et al., 2014), improves long-term retention (Carpenter et al., 2022; Dunlosky et al., 2013; Roediger & Butler, 2011), and enhances understanding (Roediger & Butler, 2011). Some studies suggest that repeated testing is up to three times more effective than restudying (Carpenter et al., 2022; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008). Despite its benefits, retrieval practice is rarely implemented not only in music education contexts, but also in most pedagogical settings (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Neelen & Kirschner, 2020; Newton et al., 2020; Roediger & Pyc, 2012).

One of the key benefits of performing regular tests is the transfer of learning (Carpenter, 2012; Pan & Rickard, 2018). Transfer is the process by which the learner applies what was studied in one context to a new situation, using their knowledge in a novel circumstance (Geringer & Madsen, 1987; Macaulay & Cree, 1999; McKeough et al., 2013). In other words, it is the application of prior knowledge to new conditions (Pan & Rickard, 2018). For instance, learning a new phrase and practicing it over a ii—V—I cadence facilitates improvisation over standards with similar chord changes; or learning a chord progression like a iii—V7/ii—ii—V—I prepares students to both memorize and improvise over standard harmonic structures in jazz like “Rhythm Changes.” Transfer is a crucial process in learning and education because most formal instruction aims for knowledge to be applied in real-life settings (Macaulay & Cree, 1999; Madsen & Madsen, 2020; McKeough et al., 2013). In jazz performance settings, improvising over a new piece demands transfer of learning. Consequently, transfer is a critical target outcome of jazz performance education because it lies at the nucleus of a frequently performed action within the profession.

Since the early 2000s, retrieval practice has been extensively tested using a wide variety of materials and subjects, including foreign vocabulary, science, history, psychology, physics, math, definition of vocabulary words, text of various lengths and topics, scientific journal articles, and even neuroanatomy (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Research on retrieval practice and music is less extensive than in other fields; however, the studies that exist yield promising results (Cash et al., 2014; Chaffin, 2007; Duke & Davis, 2006; Segalowitz et al., 2001; Telesco et al., 2021; Williamon & Valentine, 2002). As the testing effect is grounded in how memory systems interact (e.g., working memory and long-term memory) and how a memory is processed (e.g., encoding, storage, consolidation, retrieval, and reconsolidation), all current evidence indicates that applying it to music learning should render the same benefits (Dudai, 2002; Dunlosky et al., 2013; Endres & Renkl, 2015; Inda et al., 2011; Neely & Cho, 2014; Sara, 2000; Ye et al., 2020). The main objective of this work is to propose the implementation of retrieval practice in jazz performance education. To achieve this, the article outlines a basic definition of retrieval practice, characterizes optimal conditions for its application, and provides two step-by-step examples of its use in the classroom.

Ideal Retrieval Conditions to Maximize Long-term Retention and Transfer

“Retrieval conditions” refer to the procedures and contexts surrounding the act of recalling information from memory (Byrne, 2017; Carpenter et al., 2022). Some variables that affect the outcomes of the retrieval process and thus long-term retention are as follows: the way retrieval is elicited (e.g., free recall, cued recall, multiple selection, and fill in the blank, among other options), overt versus covert retrieval, low- versus high-effort retrieval, low- versus high-stake testing, and massed versus spaced retrieval (Carpenter et al., 2022; Roediger & Butler, 2011). This section describes how to manipulate some of the most relevant retrieval conditions to boost the effect of retrieval practice.

Use Low- to No-Stakes Tests

There is a widely studied relationship between acute stress and long-term retention: the more stressful the retrieval conditions (e.g., high-stakes test or exam), the lesser the benefits on long-term retention (Hinze & Rapp, 2014; Kenney & Bailey, 2021; Nichols, 2007; Wenzel & Reinhard, 2021). More simply put, low- to no-stakes quizzing is the type of retrieval that enhances learning (Hinze & Rapp, 2014). High-stakes tests or exams are stressful conditions that could harm long-term retention. For this reason, high-stakes exams should not be considered or included as a part of a retrieval schedule when designing classes or lessons.

Minimize Retrieval Cues

Retrieval cues are prompts or hints that help with the process of memory recall (Moult, 2011). In cued recall, students are presented with material (e.g., the starting section of a piece of music, the first two bars in a specific section) that is related to the information being tested (Moult, 2011; Segalowitz et al., 2001). In contrast, when performing free recall, students are encouraged to retrieve all information they remember, without giving them any specific questions or cues. The more challenging the retrieval conditions (e.g., free recall or retrieval without cues), the better the long-term retention. This phenomenon is called retrieval-effort effect (Pyc & Rawson, 2009). Consequently, cues that facilitate retrieval should be avoided or minimized. Nonetheless, cues could be introduced as a form of scaffolding when students fail to retrieve (Fiechter & Benjamin, 2018; Finley et al., 2011).

Use Free Recall

Retrieval could be elicited by a variety of testing tools: multiple-choice questions, essay questions, cued recall, and flashcards, among many other strategies. Nonetheless, the most researched setting for retrieval practice is free recall in which students attempt to remember previously studied material in any order, without using prompts, cues, or questions (Arnold & McDermott, 2013; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008). The benefits of free recall for long-term retention, transfer, and other desirable learning outcomes are well established (Arnold & McDermott, 2013; Carpenter et al., 2022; Roediger & Butler, 2011). Free recall is inexpensive, easy to implement, and requires only minimal school supplies.

Use Repeated Testing

The number of retrieval opportunities is another variable that strongly affects long-term retention and transfer. Evidence suggests that retrieval practice is most effective when performed as repeated testing (Karpicke & Roediger, 2007). Long-term retention and transfer are consistently and significatively increased when four or more retrieval opportunities are given (see Figure 1; Butler, 2010; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007, 2008; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Vaughn & Rawson, 2011; Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al., 2014).

Figure 1.

Depiction of a Repeated Testing Schedule.

Timing and Spacing

In characterizing beneficial retrieval schedules for repeated testing, the most prevalent finding is “the longer, the better” (Carter & Grahn, 2016; Karpicke & Bauernschmidt, 2011; Pyc & Rawson, 2007, 2009; Roediger & Butler, 2011). Very short intervals between tests (e.g., 1 min) have almost no positive impact on long-term retention (Pyc & Rawson, 2009; Roediger & Butler, 2011). Six minutes is the shortest interval between tests that has rendered positive results on long-term retention (Pyc & Rawson, 2009). Nonetheless, intervals of 24 to 72 hr result in far superior learning outcomes (Pyc & Rawson, 2007; Rawson & Dunlosky, 2011; Roediger & Butler, 2011). Considering that most subject matter in music education settings is visited a maximum of once a day, the minimum space between retrieval opportunities would be 24 hr, rendering an effective retrieval schedule. Low-stake tests of previously studied material should be performed at the beginning of the lesson to take advantage of the space between classes and also to avoid cues that could reduce the effect of the test (Latimier et al., 2019; Roelle et al., 2022).

Feedback

Feedback is defined by Hattie and Timperley (2007) as “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (p. 81). Within the context of retrieval practice, it has been demonstrated that providing the correct answers after a test increases its memory benefits (Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Wisniewski et al., 2020), ensuring that future retrieval attempts will be successful (Butler et al., 2008). Moreover, supplementing retrieval practice with feedback can increase motivation to continue learning (Abel & Bäuml, 2020). Feedback is even more critical when students complete recognition tests (e.g., true or false questions, multiple choice) because they are exposed to incorrect answers. As retrieval produces learning, completing a recognition test poses the risk of memorizing wrong information (Marsh et al., 2007, 2012). Nonetheless, evidence strongly suggests that providing students with feedback after a recognition test dramatically reduces or even nullifies its potential negative effects (Butler & Roediger, 2008; Marsh et al., 2012). Some key guidelines to provide effective feedback include the following: (a) engage in a two-way conversation with students in which they can communicate their doubts, questions, and their own musical and nonmusical ideas; (b) focus on how to improve on mistakes, interpretation, and technique instead of on the errors themselves; (c) be specific about what needs to be practiced to achieve the desired outcome; (d) inquire students about how they feel and what they think, so as to orient them in the most informed fashion; and (e) ask students to explain the instructor’s feedback to check whether it is understood (for a more detailed review, see McPherson et al., 2022; Wisniewski et al., 2020)

Examples of Retrieval Practice Application

There is a growing interest in assessing the impact of retrieval practice and repeated testing outside the laboratory, in naturalistic settings (e.g., lessons, rehearsals, and classrooms). Current research indicates that retrieval practice has a positive and powerful impact on student learning in the classroom (Agarwal et al., 2014, 2021; Carpenter et al., 2022; Gurung & Burns, 2019). The examples provided in the following sections are a general guide that could help teachers and professors incorporate retrieval practice into their day-to-day practice.

Retrieving the Chord Changes of “Tune Up.”

“Tune Up” is a composition by Eddie Vinson, popularized by Miles Davis (Nisenson, 2000). It is frequently used as a vehicle for improvisation in jam sessions and is considered a part of the standard repertoire. Its harmonic progression is characterized by a sequence of modulations that descend in whole steps (e.g., when played in D major, it goes through C major and Bb major). In each key, these modulations are accomplished through long ii—V—I cadences with a harmonic rhythm of one chord per bar. As ii—V—I cadences are the most prevalent chord progressions in the jazz repertoire (Coker et al., 1997; Terefenko, 2014), “Tune Up” lends itself as an important learning tool for advanced beginner to intermediate students (Coker et al., 1997; Murphy, 2009). The following steps are a guide for retrieving the chord changes of “Tune Up” and provide a template for recalling harmonic progressions within classroom settings.

Step 1: As retrieval practice consists in remembering information that was previously practiced or taught, tests should be performed after the subject is first introduced (Carpenter et al., 2022; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Roediger & Butler, 2011).

Step 2: At the beginning of class, prepare to perform a nongraded test (Kenney & Bailey, 2021; Vogel & Schwabe, 2016; Wenzel & Reinhard, 2021) of “Tune Up.” To clarify expectations (Finn & Schrodt, 2012; Li & Benton, 2019; McPherson et al., 2022; Titsworth et al., 2015), use the chord changes of a different song as a model of potential answers (Chesebro, 2003; Renkl et al., 2009). Ask your students to remove any cues, notes, or material that could help them remember the harmony of the song (Carpenter & Delosh, 2006; Fiechter & Benjamin, 2018; Finley et al., 2011). Invite your students to take risks and make mistakes: guessing, making an error, and then correcting it generates more learning than only reading the correct answer (Pan & Sana, 2021; Vaughn & Rawson, 2012; Yan et al., 2014).

Step 3: Direct them to write down the chord changes of “Tune Up” completely from memory. You could also ask them to add further information, for instance, the form, roman numeral analysis, tonal centers within the song, or other previously taught material (Carpenter, 2009; Carpenter & Delosh, 2006). Give them enough time to perform the task (around 10–15 min).

Step 4: Show your students the correct answer and allow them to correct their responses. Display all the information that was taught with “Tune Up” and was asked for in the test. Feedback should be specific and actionable (McPherson et al., 2022; Wisniewski et al., 2020). Ask them to incorporate the corrections in their work (Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Wisniewski et al., 2020).

Step 5: Allow them to pose questions and provide additional feedback when requested (Fletcher, 2018; Järvelä, 2011; Karabenick & Newman, 2009; McPherson et al., 2022).

Step 6: Repeat the process three or more times, ensuring adequate spacing between sessions. Repeated testing will enhance learning and transfer (Butler, 2010; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al., 2014).

Private Lessons: Retrieving Wynton Kelly’s Solo on “Freddie Freeloader”

As private lessons happen in a one-on-one format, implementing retrieval practice is simpler. Testing could be applied to transcriptions, harmonic analysis, melodies, phrases, scales, or almost any topic. The following steps are a guide for retrieving Kelly’s solo on “Freddie Freeloader” and provide a template for the application of free recall to transcriptions within private lessons.

Step 1: As retrieval practice consists in recalling previously learned information, Kelly’s solo on “Freddie Freeloader” (Davis, 1959) should be studied in lessons or assigned as personal practice prior to retrieval (Carpenter et al., 2022; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Roediger & Butler, 2011). The amount of information a student will be able to recall during a test varies widely. It is commensurate with the student’s previous knowledge of the subject, depth and quality of the practice sessions, number of retrieval opportunities before the test, and spacing between practice sessions, among other variables (Carpenter et al., 2022; Endres & Renkl, 2015; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Roediger & Butler, 2011). Because of this, it is critical to set goals and expectations thoughtfully and realistically, considering important factors such as the student’s playing level and experience with jazz transcription and improvisation.

Step 2: At the beginning of the lesson, before listening to or reading a transcription of the solo, ask your student to play Kelly’s “Freddie Freeloader” solo by themselves, without the recording (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Roediger & Butler, 2011). The performance should not be graded in any way (Kenney & Bailey, 2021; Smith & Thomas, 2018; Vogel & Schwabe, 2016). Instructors should take notes while listening to the student performance, so as to give specific, actionable feedback (Abel & Bäuml, 2020; Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; McPherson et al., 2022; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Wisniewski et al., 2020). It is also recommended to audio record the student performance to provide, what has been termed, “augmented feedback” (Anderson et al., 2019; Sigrist et al., 2013).

Step 3: Using the original recording, your notes, and the student-recorded performance of the solo, provide actionable feedback (McPherson et al., 2022). Be as specific as possible: indicate how to improve the performance in terms of phrasing, dynamics, articulation, note duration, and rhythmic precision (Abel & Bäuml, 2020; McPherson et al., 2022; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Wisniewski et al., 2020).

Step 4: Give your student time to incorporate your suggestions and advice. Allow them to imitate and copy your examples (Schiavio et al., 2020; Simones et al., 2017).

Step 5: Provide students with specific advice to keep improving their performance of the transcription, indicating which parts to work on and how (Abel & Bäuml, 2020; McPherson et al., 2022; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Wisniewski et al., 2020). Set clear expectations for the next test (Chesebro, 2003; Titsworth et al., 2015).

Step 6: Repeat the process three or more times (Butler, 2010; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007, 2008). Advise your students to perform retrieval practice in their own study sessions and to keep a schedule that allows for multiple, spaced practice sessions (e.g., 4 or more hours between study sessions of the solo) instead of blocking their study time (e.g., practicing the solo for 6 hr before the lesson; Carpenter et al., 2022; Soderstrom et al., 2016). After a successful performance of the transcription in class, increase the spacing between tests (e.g., perform a test in every other class instead of in each session; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Soderstrom et al., 2016).

Conclusion

The benefits of retrieval practice extend beyond long-term retention. Low- to no-stakes testing facilitates transfer (Butler, 2010; Carpenter, 2012; Pan & Rickard, 2018), diminishes test anxiety (Agarwal et al., 2014), leads to long-lasting knowledge (Carpenter et al., 2022; Dunlosky et al., 2013; Roediger & Butler, 2011), and increases motivation (Abel & Bäuml, 2020), among other positive learning outcomes. Testing also decreases the negative effects of acute stress on memory retrieval (Smith et al., 2016). The value of this potential outcome is underscored when one considers the stress that live performances induce in some students (Smith et al., 2016; Smith & Thomas, 2018; Vogel & Schwabe, 2016). Finally, retrieval practice is beneficial to all students regardless of background (Bertilsson et al., 2021; Dunlosky et al., 2013), making it a universally applicable, highly impactful learning strategy.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Rebecca Torres for her critical comments, helpful discussions, and suggestions.

Authors’ Note

Both authors reviewed the literature, created the examples, and wrote the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mario Wellmann

References

Abbott

E. E.

(1909). On the analysis of the factor of recall in the learning process. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 11(1), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093018

Abel

Bäuml

K.-H. T.

(2020). Would you like to learn more? Retrieval practice plus feedback can increase motivation to keep on studying. Cognition, 201, Article 104316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104316

Adesope

O. O.

Trevisan

D. A.

Sundararajan

(2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

Agarwal

P. K.

D’Antonio

Roediger

H. L.

McDermott

K. B.

McDaniel

M. A.

(2014). Classroom-based programs of retrieval practice reduce middle school and high school students’ test anxiety. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.002

Agarwal

P. K.

Nunes

L. D.

Blunt

J. R.

(2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1409–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

Anderson

D. I.

Magill

R. A.

Mayo

A. M.

Steel

K. A.

(2019). Enhancing motor skill acquisition with augmented feedback. In Hodges

N. J.

Williams

A. M.

(Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport (3rd ed., pp. 3–19). Routledge.

Arnold

K. M.

McDermott

K. B.

(2013). Free recall enhances subsequent learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 507–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0370-3

Bangert-Drowns

R. L.

Kulik

C.-L. C.

Kulik

J. A.

Morgan

(1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213

Bertilsson

Stenlund

Wiklund-Hörnqvist

Jonsson

(2021). Retrieval practice: Beneficial for all students or moderated by individual differences? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 20(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720973494

10.

Bjork

R. A.

Dunlosky

Kornell

(2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823

11.

Butler

A. C.

(2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019902

12.

Butler

A. C.

Karpicke

J. D.

Roediger

H. L.

(2008). Correcting a metacognitive error: Feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 918–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.918

13.

Butler

A. C.

Roediger

H. L.

(2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 604–616. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.3.604

14.

Byrne

J. H.

(Ed.). (2017). Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference. Academic Press.

15.

Carpenter

S. K.

(2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021

16.

Carpenter

S. K.

(2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728

17.

Carpenter

S. K.

Delosh

E. L.

(2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193405

18.

Carpenter

S. K.

Pan

S. C.

Butler

A. C.

(2022). The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1

19.

Carter

C. E.

Grahn

J. A.

(2016). Optimizing music learning: Exploring how blocked and interleaved practice schedules affect advanced performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01251

20.

Cash

C. D.

Allen

S. E.

Simmons

A. L.

Duke

R. A.

(2014). Effects of model performances on music skill acquisition and overnight memory consolidation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413520409

21.

Chaffin

(2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization. Music Perception, 24(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2007.24.4.377

22.

Chesebro

J. L.

(2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302471

23.

Coker

Knapp

Vincent

(1997). Hearin’ the changes: Dealing with unknown tunes by ear (1st ed.). Advance Music.

24.

Davis

(1959). Kind of blue. Columbia/Legacy.

25.

Dudai

(2002). Molecular bases of long-term memories: A question of persistence. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12(2), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4388(02)00305-7

26.

Duke

R. A.

Davis

C. M.

(2006). Procedural memory consolidation in the performance of brief keyboard sequences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400203

27.

Dunlosky

Rawson

K. A.

Marsh

E. J.

Nathan

M. J.

Willingham

D. T.

(2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

28.

Endres

Renkl

(2015). Mechanisms behind the testing effect: An empirical investigation of retrieval practice in meaningful learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1054. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01054

29.

Fiechter

J. L.

Benjamin

A. S.

(2018). Diminishing-cues retrieval practice: A memory-enhancing technique that works when regular testing doesn’t. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1868–1876. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1366-9

30.

Finley

J. R.

Benjamin

A. S.

Hays

M. J.

Bjork

R. A.

Kornell

(2011). Benefits of accumulating versus diminishing cues in recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.006

31.

Finn

A. N.

Schrodt

(2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication Education, 61(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.656669

32.

Fletcher

A. K.

(2018). Help seeking: Agentic learners initiating feedback. Educational Review, 70(4), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1340871

33.

Gates

A. I.

(1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. The Science Press.

34.

Geringer

J. M.

Madsen

C. K.

(1987). An investigation of transfer: Music education research and applied instruction. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 45–49.

35.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Burns

(2019). Putting evidence-based claims to the test: A multi-site classroom study of retrieval practice and spaced practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3507

36.

Hattie

Timperley

(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

37.

Hinze

S. R.

Rapp

D. N.

(2014). Retrieval (sometimes) enhances learning: Performance pressure reduces the benefits of retrieval practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3032

38.

Inda

M. C.

Muravieva

E. V.

Alberini

C. M.

(2011). Memory retrieval and the passage of time: From reconsolidation and strengthening to extinction. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(5), 1635–1643. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4736-10.2011

39.

Järvelä

(2011). How does help seeking help?—New prospects in a variety of contexts. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 297–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.006

40.

Karabenick

S. A.

Newman

R. S.

(2009). Seeking help: Generalizable self-regulatory process and social-cultural barometer. In Wosnitza

Karabenick

S. A.

Efklides

Nenniger

(Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 25–48). Hogrefe & Huber.

41.

Karpicke

J. D.

Bauernschmidt

(2011). Spaced retrieval: Absolute spacing enhances learning regardless of relative spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1250–1257. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023436

42.

Karpicke

J. D.

Roediger

H. L.

(2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004

43.

Karpicke

J. D.

Roediger

H. L.

(2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408

44.

Kenney

K. L.

Bailey

(2021). Low-stakes quizzes improve learning and reduce overconfidence in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i2.28650

45.

Latimier

Riegert

Peyre

S. T.

Casati

Ramus

(2019). Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing? npj Science of Learning, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0053-1

46.

Benton

S. L.

(2019). Teaching methods associated with teacher clarity. Idea research note #7. IDEA Center, Inc. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED604020

47.

Macaulay

Cree

V. E.

(1999). Transfer of learning: Concept and process. Social Work Education, 18(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479911220181

48.

Madsen

C. H.

Madsen

C. K.

(2020). Teaching discipline: A positive approach for educational development (5th ed.). Contemporary Publishing Company of Raleigh.

49.

Marsh

E. J.

Lozito

J. P.

Umanath

Bjork

E. L.

Bjork

R. A.

(2012). Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test. Memory, 20(6), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.684882

50.

Marsh

E. J.

Roediger

H. L.

Bjork

R. A.

Bjork

E. L.

(2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194051

51.

McKeough

Lupart

J. L.

Marini

(Eds.). (2013). Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044736

52.

McPherson

G. E.

Blackwell

Hattie

(2022). Feedback in music performance teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 891025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.891025

53.

Moult

(2011). Cued Recall. In Kreutzer

J. S.

DeLuca

Caplan

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology (pp. 751–752). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1116

54.

Murphy

J. P

. (2009). Beyond the improvisation in class: Learning to improvise in a university jazz studies program. In Solis

Nettl

(Eds.), Musical improvisation: Art, education, and society (pp. 171–184). University of Illinois Press.

55.

Neelen

Kirschner

P. A.

(2020). Evidence-informed learning design: Creating training to improve performance. KoganPage.

56.

Neely

J. H.

Cho

K. W.

(2014). Testing and retrieval practice effects: Assessing the contributions of encoding and retrieval mechanisms. In Lindsay

D. S.

Kelley

C. M.

Yonelinas

A. P.

Roediger

H. L.

(Eds.), Remembering (pp. 29–45). Psychology Press.

57.

Newton

P. M.

Da Silva

Berry

(2020). The case for pragmatic evidence-based higher education: A useful way forward? Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 583157. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2020.583157

58.

Nichols

S. L.

(2007). High-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v23n02_04

59.

Nisenson

(2000). The making of Kind of Blue: Miles Davis and his masterpiece. St. Martin’s Press.

60.

Pan

S. C.

Rickard

T. C.

(2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000151

61.

Pan

S. C.

Sana

(2021). Pretesting versus posttesting: Comparing the pedagogical benefits of errorful generation and retrieval practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000345

62.

Pyc

M. A.

Rawson

K. A.

(2007). Examining the efficiency of schedules of distributed retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 1917–1927. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192925

63.

Pyc

M. A.

Rawson

K. A.

(2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004

64.

Rawson

K. A.

Dunlosky

(2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023956

65.

Renkl

Hilbert

Schworm

(2009). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: A cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9093-4

66.

Roediger

H. L.

Butler

A. C.

(2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003

67.

Roediger

H. L.

Karpicke

J. D.

(2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x

68.

Roediger

H. L.

Pyc

M. A.

(2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.002

69.

Roelle

Froese

Krebs

Obergassel

Waldeyer

(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

70.

Sara

S. J.

(2000). Retrieval and reconsolidation: Toward a neurobiology of remembering. Learning & Memory, 7(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.7.2.73

71.

Schiavio

Stupacher

Parncutt

Timmers

(2020). Learning music from each other: Synchronization, turn-taking, or imitation? Music Perception, 37(5), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2020.37.5.403

72.

Segalowitz

Cohen

Chan

Prieur

(2001). Musical recall memory: Contributions of elaboration and depth of processing. Psychology of Music, 29(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735601292004

73.

Sigrist

Rauter

Riener

Wolf

(2013). Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(1), 21–53. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8

74.

Simones

Rodger

Schroeder

(2017). Seeing how it sounds: Observation, imitation, and improved learning in piano playing. Cognition and Instruction, 35(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1282483

75.

Smith

A. M.

Floerke

V. A.

Thomas

A. K.

(2016). Retrieval practice protects memory against acute stress. Science, 354(6315), 1046–1048. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5067

76.

Smith

A. M.

Thomas

A. K.

(2018). Reducing the consequences of acute stress on memory retrieval. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.007

77.

Soderstrom

N. C.

Kerr

T. K.

Bjork

R. A.

(2016). The critical importance of retrieval—And spacing—For learning. Psychological Science, 27(2), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617778

78.

Telesco

Karaca

Ewing

Gilbert

Lipitz

Weinstein-Jones

(2021). Does retrieval practice enhance memorization of piano melodies? College Music Symposium, 61(2), 1–23.

79.

Terefenko

(2014). Jazz theory: From basic to advanced study. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203380000

80.

Thorndike

E. L.

(1914). Communications and discussion. Repetition versus recall in memorizing vocabularies: The effect of continuous exercise and of rest upon difficult mental multiplication. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(10), 596–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072245

81.

Titsworth

Mazer

J. P.

Goodboy

A. K.

Bolkan

Myers

S. A.

(2015). Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning. Communication Education, 64(4), 385–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998

82.

Vaughn

K. E.

Rawson

K. A.

(2011). Diagnosing criterion-level effects on memory: What aspects of memory are enhanced by repeated retrieval? Psychological Science, 22(9), 1127–1131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417724

83.

Vaughn

K. E.

Rawson

K. A.

(2012). When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 899–905. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0276-0

84.

Vogel

Schwabe

(2016). Learning and memory under stress: Implications for the classroom. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.11

85.

Wenzel

Reinhard

M.-A.

(2021). Learning with a double-edged sword? Beneficial and detrimental effects of learning tests—Taking a first look at linkages among tests, later learning outcomes, stress perceptions, and intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 693585. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693585

86.

Wiklund-Hörnqvist

Jonsson

Nyberg

(2014). Strengthening concept learning by repeated testing. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12093

87.

Williamon

Valentine

(2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing music. Cognitive Psychology, 44(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0759

88.

Wisniewski

Zierer

Hattie

(2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087

89.

Yan

V. X.

Garcia

M. A.

Bjork

R. A.

(2014). Why does guessing incorrectly enhance, rather than impair, retention? Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1373–1383. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0454-6

90.

Shi

Chen

Xue

(2020). Retrieval practice facilitates memory updating by enhancing and differentiating medial prefrontal cortex representations. ELife, 9, Article e57023. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57023

Research-to-Resource: Introducing Retrieval Practice in Jazz Pedagogy

Abstract

Keywords

Ideal Retrieval Conditions to Maximize Long-term Retention and Transfer

Use Low- to No-Stakes Tests

Minimize Retrieval Cues

Use Free Recall

Use Repeated Testing

Timing and Spacing

Feedback

Examples of Retrieval Practice Application

Retrieving the Chord Changes of “Tune Up.”

Private Lessons: Retrieving Wynton Kelly’s Solo on “Freddie Freeloader”

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References