WPW

Part of Retrieval

Whole-part-whole is a test of whether a subject is understood or merely familiar, sat by teaching the whole of it out loud from memory, books shut, map out of sight, and scored by the places where the explanation would not come. The teaching moves from the big picture down into each part and back up again, and every place it stalls, goes vague, or turns circular, a term defined with the term, becomes the work list for what to learn next. Of the retrieval methods this vault carries, it is the most demanding. The move it runs at every step, building each concept in plain words and letting the name arrive last, is called reverse explanation.

Core takeaways

• A pass teaches a whole subject out loud from memory with every book and map shut. The places where the explanation stalls, goes vague, or defines a term with the term are the work list.
• The teaching keeps returning to the big picture after almost every new idea. One descent into detail and one return at the end is a summary and has lost the mechanism.
• Every technical term is held back until the listener could say I understand this, I just don’t know what it is called. That move is reverse explanation, and it tests the speaker, because without the word the idea has to stand on its ties to other ideas.
• A pass that feels easy, or that reads out three names and then defines each in turn, is being done wrong. Struggle, slowness, and finding gap after gap are the technique working.
• Gaps are repaired inside the session, and a pass costs hours. The time is worth it on this system’s accounting because time only goes where a gap was just found, so the return does not flatten.
• The research supports learning by teaching, feedback inside the session, and the illusion of explanatory depth. Running the model as a closed-book self-test is this system’s adaptation, and no study has tested it in that form.

How a pass moves

The name describes a movement, and the movement is a loop rather than a route. A pass opens with the whole in plain language: what the topic is about, why it is worth knowing, what its major pieces are, how the pieces bear on each other, in that order, with no technical vocabulary anywhere. Then the teaching drops into a part, and it keeps returning to the big picture after almost every new idea: a sentence placing the part in the whole before it begins, a recap handing off through the whole when it ends. A pass with one descent and one return, overview, details, summary, has kept the technique’s vocabulary and lost its mechanism. Because the whole is hard to locate from the middle of an explanation, the working discipline is a question kept written in view of the desk: is what I am teaching right now relevant to the big picture, and would a listener see why?

The pass also runs in two stages, each protecting against its own class of question. Stage one is the whole topic in layman’s terms, importance explained the moment it arises, anchored to a real instance of where the thing operates and never promised for later, and any statement that drifts abstract immediately given something tangible to point at; this is the stage that holds up under conceptual questions, hard short-answer questions, and curveballs. Stage two attaches the technology: labelling, each term landing on a component the listener already understands, then technical elaboration, each component explained again in its own terms at the depth an exam would ask. This is the stage that holds up under detail, definition, and pure-recall questions. Withholding terminology that long is deliberate. A term hands the speaker a definition to fall back on; with the term gone, the concept has to be held up by its relationships alone, and every weak relationship becomes audible.

Taught this way, photosynthesis does not open with a definition of photosynthesis. It opens with plants: everywhere, green, and with no mouth or digestive system, so something else must be feeding them. Three things turn out to be involved, the leaves, the roots, and sunlight, and the leaf comes first, because it holds a green pigment that runs the reaction making the plant’s food. Only then does the pigment get its name, chlorophyll, landing in a slot the listener has already built; then back up to the whole, to what the trunk and roots are for. Concept before label at every step is the move.

Concept before label

Concept before label is reverse explanation: building the concept in ordinary words until a listener can say I understand this, I just don’t know what it is called. The name arrives last, into that slot. The usual handover, term first and then a definition, arrives isolated, a new fact with nothing already held to join.

The explanation that does this walks out from what the listener already holds, until a gap with a shape shows up: something is plainly here, its job is visible, and the only thing missing is the name. The label then falls into a place already cut for it.

The explanation moves in that order. It opens on the big picture, then why the thing matters, then the detail in lay terms, then a concrete case. The label arrives only after that. The same idea can then be said again in specialised terms, and the explanation returns to the whole. Specialised language is not banned. It arrives later, once there is a place for it.

The stakes need a case in the same breath. Parking the why for later, we will see why this matters later, snaps the order. A concrete use belongs before the name.

Building one concept in lay terms can take several minutes, and it feels slow. Once that base exists, later terms can land back-to-back, because each one names something already understood. The slow stretch sets up the later speed.

A lay-term build the listener did not need costs a minute. A term the listener cannot attach to anything costs the whole explanation. When the level is unsure, the cheaper error is to go lower.

Who the move tests

The slow stretch is what the speaker pays for. Take the definition away as a fallback and the idea has to stand on its ties to other ideas alone, which makes every thin join hearable. That is why the move is retrieval for the speaker and not only a teaching trick. Preparing to teach, and actually teaching, beat restudy. The extra demand here is that the word itself is no longer available as a fallback.

The evidenced half is that speaker-side test. The listener’s slot is the hoped-for side-effect. A session that felt slow may have been the one that actually ran.

If the importance cannot be said before the name, the relationship was not actually held. A definition waiting as backup means the ties never had to be proved, and proving them is the difficulty that produces the learning.

Running one

A pass starts at least three days after the map it tests was finished; eight or nine days is fine. Too fresh, and everything is still equally available, so the weak relationships cannot be told from the strong ones; given time for memory to fade, they are the first thing the pass finds. The map itself comes from encoding through Bear Hunter System beforehand; run before that structure has landed, a pass produces failure with nothing to diagnose.

The map stays out of sight for the whole session. Teaching off it re-tests the shape already on paper, and teaching from memory is what frees the explanation from the order the material was learned in, since the best teaching flow often does not match the map’s layout. What gets drawn instead is a doodle: a rough map sketched at speaking speed, symbols over words, disposable, there to track the flow of thinking rather than to be read again. Delivery is out loud or a whisper, and slow; rushing reliably ruins a pass. The slowness is exploration time between points, never extra justification per point.

Repair happens inside the session. A gap stops the pass on the spot: the missing piece gets relearned and re-taught, sometimes three or four times before it holds, the failed explanation becoming the question that drives the next few minutes of study, Inquiry-Based Learning in miniature. A session budgets for interruption rather than a clean run-through, and a pass ending with a tidy gap list and no repairs has produced half its value. Struggle on the first attempt is the technique working; a second and third pass still pay, because the knowledge has changed in between. None of it is quick: a couple of hours for one topic area, five to ten hours across two days for a subject’s revision, and those figures, like every number given here for timing and repetition, are this system’s operating defaults rather than findings. The hours still count as time-efficient on this system’s own accounting, because only the delivery is slow: underneath it the relationships are being navigated fast, so an hour of the pass buys more than the clock suggests.

A session this size is what this vault calls high-volume retrieval practice: one long sweep pulling a whole topic out of memory at once, relationships and details together, at its best in the early and middle stretch of revision because it finds weak spots fast while covering the topic comprehensively. The other common sweep, the brain dump, writing or drawing everything producible with every book and note closed, tests relationships less directly; preferring the whole-part-whole movement over it is a stated preference rather than a finding, and the counter-evidence sits under Research foundations below. Sweeps sit on a spaced ladder whose gaps come from the deadline rather than the calendar: a useful interval runs roughly 10–20% of the time until the material is needed, which is the three-day rule’s reason and the way to move it. The default ladder gives the first teaching pass three to four days after the map, challenge questions four to five days after that, answers to those questions one to two weeks on, and a group quiz roughly two weeks after that, each gap there to allow forgetting, so the pass tests durable memory rather than this morning’s. Inside a teaching week it compresses to checkpoints at end-of-week and the two-week mark, each one making the sessions after it more targeted:

When	The work
Before the class	[[wiki/Dimensions/Deep Processing/Prestudy
During	Consolidating layers 1–3; for maths and physics, solving problems
Same day after	Layer 4; [[wiki/Dimensions/Deep Processing/Skin
Mid-week, when volume is high	A whole-part-whole pass over the week so far
End of week	A pass over what is new since mid-week, or the full week; own test questions answered or swapped with a study group
Three to four weeks on, and before exams	Brain dumps and practice papers

Flashcards run daily in Microlearning System pockets, no dedicated session, the best-evidenced line in this schedule.

What the pass measures and what it costs

One pass reads out most of the state of a topic: whether the higher-order structure is clear and its important relationships correctly ordered; whether the joins between layers hold, down into a part and back up without a seam; whether the details inside each part come; and whether the technical terms are backed by anything. Mistaking a part’s name for a grasp of its causal role is one of the three measured ways understanding gets overestimated. It also reads out independence from the original material, since teaching from memory exists to catch the explanation that can only follow the order it was learned in. The reading can be a number: understanding rated 0–10 before and again after the pass drops, and the size of the drop is the finding, thirty seconds of procedure. The three producers of the overestimate are what to listen for: leaning on support that happens to be in the room, a functional description where a mechanism was needed, a name where a causal role was needed.

That coverage is the case for the cost. One pass demands recall, explanation, analysis, judgment of what matters, and fresh connections at once, most of the ladder in Knowledge Mastery: From Recognition to Usable Knowledge, as a claim about what the task asks rather than a measured property; and when the earlier chunking grouped things by why they matter, the teaching tracks the map closely, which is why one pass can test so much. The hours are the cost, and the return curve is this system’s own teaching model for why the cost is worth paying. Conventional revision returns steeply and then flattens: heavy late hours buy three or four points, when nearly the same score was reachable much earlier for about a third of the time, while examinable material sits outside the narrow set of things that keep being re-revised. A gap-seeking pass returns moderately and does not flatten, because time only goes where a gap was just found; the curve levels off only when no gaps are left. The one outside anchor agrees: extra practice past the point of initial success has measured out to no gain at one or four weeks. Passes belong inside Spaced Interleaved Retrieval rather than on their own, and what they prepare is use, exams, essays, real problems, with the caveat that transfer beyond the practised form is where retrieval practice most often fails. The checkable expectation follows: a first pass that produced no gaps did not succeed; it did not test anything.

Reading the session

The first signal is comfort. A pass that feels easy is almost certainly being done wrong, even very strong students struggle on first attempts, and a first pass that feels straightforward is a strong sign the concept-before-label move is not happening. A pass in which no reverse explanations appeared did not happen at all, whatever else looked fine. Stopping to fix a sentence halfway through is ordinary, and it does no damage. The commonest silent failure is the terminology crutch, and it is audible: the topic has three components, here are their names, here is each definition in turn. The sequence feels smooth and economical, and that feeling is the alarm. In crutching, the name stands in for the relationship, so the idea never has to be carried without the word. Crutching cannot be eliminated every time; catching it most of the time is enough, and a perfect pass is not the job. A working pass feels slow, with a hyper-awareness of what to say next, the live evaluation of your own structure, and a steady anxiety of finding gap after gap, which is the overestimate breaking; the anxiety is the intended outcome. Good signs are specific: a first whole that coheres, a second whole cleaner than the first, details that can be tied to the structure they support.

Gaps cluster in two places, the transitions between layers and single details never properly memorised, and each signature has its repair. Details that come nowhere take targeted lower-order retrieval on those items. An explanation that can only follow the lecture’s order takes a rebuild from your own chunk structure. A big picture that cannot be stated without diving into detail means the understanding is fact-based, and the map gets rebuilt into something redrawable closed-book, the Skin cleanup, run again on the map that failed. A pause on why is this important? is data; that hesitation separates understanding from memorisation. Persistent trouble saying why something matters points at the chunking rather than the recall: the chunks were grouped by shared information instead of shared importance, which is Importance-Based Chunking‘s territory, and those chunks are worth rebuilding before the next pass. A failed reverse explanation is a gap, and Inquiry Based Learning is the loop that gap opens. Smooth delivery that avoids precision takes technical labels and concrete instances, because fluency is not evidence. And a sprawling, unfocused session is a scope problem, one topic boundary, one mastery target, at the same slow pace, never a speed problem.

Past these sit the faults that surface once the obvious ones are cleared: justifying a point whose importance has already landed; not knowing which points deserve detailed justification at all, so a good line of reasoning drags out to several times its length; and traversing too slowly between the logic layer and the detail, where the target is reaching the detail sooner rather than compressing the explanation. Early on, flow outranks fluency: stuttering and unpolished delivery fix themselves, doubling back is the thing to watch.

The listener stays imagined: a student invented in advance, whose prior knowledge gets decided before the explanation starts. Early in a subject, or with any discomfort, that student knows nothing, and everything comes down to lay terms; genuine confidence at an advanced level earns the right to assume the basics and skip the ground-floor build. The imagining has a reason: a listener who already knows the material quietly supplies the structure the pass exists to make you produce. The research adds one correction, preferring a real listener who interrupts wherever one exists, and the reason marks its boundary: the interrupting helps, the already-knowing does not. A word can show up ahead of its full idea only if two gates both hold. It is conceptually light, atom, molecule. And it is set inside a story already underway that supplies the setting. Either gate alone is not enough.

Early passes are worth recording, because term-before-relevance is hard to hear live. The thing to listen for on playback is the label arriving before its explanation, and listening back trains the ability to hear it. A swap with a study partner does the same job, and the fault is learned faster on a partner’s recorded pass, predicted before it plays out, because a fault you cannot hear in someone else is one you commit without noticing.

Outside the teaching pass

The same ordering leaves the teaching pass. A presentation opens with the situation and the stakes in plain terms, and names the framework or product once the audience already wants a name for it. A page that builds the reason to care before introducing its own subject performs a reverse explanation in prose. First sentences that lead with the mechanism are the written form of label-last. Theme First Text Analysis runs the same ordering at essay scale. A presentation or a page that hands over names and then defines them, and feels easy doing it, did not run the move.

A term that arrives into a slot stays attached, in a lesson and in a room that is not a lesson. Connected terms are the ones that survive pruning; Survive and Thrive is why.

Research foundations

The position underneath the technique is that depending on a good teacher is a bad position to be in, and the technique exists to end it. The mechanism runs in four steps. While material is basic, a clear teacher removes the need to work anything out, and early results reward the arrangement; a learner with worse teaching is forced to build the skill of managing difficulty while the material is still easy, which is the cheap time to build it. When the material turns advanced, the well-taught learner needs that skill for the first time, has to build it against hard content, and the results invert. The marker of the condition is results that track how good the teaching was, or how naturally interesting the subject felt; a learner in control of their own learning cannot really have the dependency, because teaching has become an adjunct to their process. The strongest reachable evidence comes from random assignment of students to instructors: the instructors whose students did best in the introductory course had students who did significantly worse in the follow-on courses, and student evaluations predicted contemporaneous achievement while failing to predict follow-on achievement. Two nearby literatures do not carry the claim: fade-out names the decay of early-intervention effects, the canonical case falling from 0.75 SD at age five to a non-significant 0.08 by age eight, and randomised tutoring trials pool at +0.37 SD, which points the other way. So the dependency chain is this vault’s model resting on the instructor study, and the claim that this technique trains the way out is this vault’s model too, untested.

The teaching half has direct measurement. Preparing to teach returns about g = 0.35; preparing and actually delivering returns about g = 0.56, larger again when the teaching is interactive, and learners who delivered an explanation matched preparation-only learners on an immediate test while beating them on a delayed one: the delivery is the intervention, not the plan. Speaking aloud has separate support with a boundary, since the laboratory effect is a within-list distinctiveness effect and backs speech only loosely at topic scale; the teaching literature is the load-bearing half. Where a real listener who interrupts is available, the evidence prefers them to the imagined one, a correction to this technique’s usual advice. In-session repair is the best-supported design choice in the technique: retrieval with feedback substantially outperforms retrieval without it, and a failed attempt followed by correction beats never attempting. The diagnostic core is measured directly: people rate their understanding high, then far lower after attempting a step-by-step causal explanation, and the illusion is strongest for explanatory knowledge specifically, which is why a recognition check cannot substitute for a teaching pass.

The boundaries are just as real. Difficulty that slows acquisition improves retention and transfer only when the learner can meet it; without the prerequisite structure the same difficulty is plain failure, and retrieval’s benefit is moderated by initial success, high initial performance being one of the conditions for transfer, which is the evidence under running this only after encoding has landed. Whole-first is not universal either: decades of skill-acquisition comparisons find part practice winning when a task is complex but loosely organised, its components difficult yet barely interdependent, and whole practice winning when the components interlock; computational procedures and discrete, weakly connected techniques route elsewhere first. The multi-order claim keeps its honest size: the taxonomy of thinking levels is real, but no study measures any technique’s coverage of it, and the revised taxonomy relaxed its own hierarchy, an empirical probe finding overlap among non-adjacent levels. The published whole-part-whole model is itself a sequence for designing instruction for other people; running it as a closed-book self-test is this system’s adaptation, which nothing in the literature has tested. The nearest support is indirect: teaching works, and prompted self-explanation returns about g = 0.55 across 69 effect sizes, and producing the meaning before the label is a generation of that kind, adjacent support for the speaker rather than a trial of label-last for the listener. Advance organizers and meaningful reception are the neighbouring family, concept before vocabulary, and not a trial of this exact label-last protocol either. The preference for this over brain dumps leans against the nearest evidence, free recall being the strongest single retrieval format measured and practised retrieval having beaten elaborative concept mapping head to head. The case against, in full: the most expensive method in this vault, wrong for weakly interdependent procedural material, useless before encoding has landed, and untested in the form taught here. The quit signals are behavioural: a pass producing no gaps and no repairs was a ritual rather than a method, the general law in The Technique Is Only as Good as the Thinking It Produces, and two in a row mean the material or the stage is wrong for it.

The finish line

It can be felt from inside. The cycle, find a gap, learn it, re-teach it, keeps turning and comes back shorter each time, confidence rising with each return, until the questions run out: nothing about the topic, from any angle, would surprise you. Reaching that state takes deliberate practice over months, even for learners already fluent with mapping and retrieval. What the months buy is the test from the opening, passed: the subject taught whole from memory, nothing open, gaps found and repaired without help, which is Self-Regulation‘s ideal standing, a learner whose results no longer depend on the quality of anyone’s teaching.

How to practice this

1. Wait at least three days after the map is finished, then teach the topic aloud, map out of sight. Notice where the explanation stalls, goes vague, or defines a term with the term.
2. Open with the whole in plain words: what it is, why it matters, its pieces, how they bear on each other. Return to the big picture after almost every new idea. Notice whether you can say why a part matters before you name it.
3. Hold each technical term back until the listener could say I understand this, I just don’t know its name. Notice whether the name lands on something already explained or arrives with a definition attached.
4. Rate your understanding 0–10 before the pass and again after it. The size of the drop is the finding, and a pass that found no gaps did not work.
5. When a gap appears, stop, relearn the missing piece, and re-teach it inside the session. Notice whether the session ended with repairs or only a gap list; the list alone is half the value.
6. Record an early pass, or swap recordings with a study partner. Listen for a label arriving before its explanation, and name the fault before it plays out.

Related pages

• Retrieval: the parent dimension, reconstructing knowledge from memory as the primary learning mechanism, with whole-part-whole as its most demanding method.
• Bear Hunter System: the encoding workflow that builds the map a pass tests, and the home of the cleanup pass that repairs a collapsed big picture.
• Spaced Interleaved Retrieval: the scheduling system these passes sit inside, with spacing, interleaving, and a method menu by knowledge type.
• Interleaving Table: the long reference for choosing a retrieval format to match the knowledge being tested.
• Self-Regulation: the steering dimension; independent diagnosis and repair of understanding is its territory.

9 more related pages

• Knowledge Mastery: From Recognition to Usable Knowledge: the five-level ladder meant whenever a pass is said to demand several orders at once.
• The Technique Is Only as Good as the Thinking It Produces: why a pass that finds no gaps counts as a ritual rather than a method.
• Layers of Learning: the build order behind every mention of layers, main causal lines first, then key ideas, then detail.
• Importance-Based Chunking: where the grouped-by-information-instead-of-importance diagnosis lands.
• Revision: the vault’s owner of general revision strategy, which points here for whole-topic sweep sessions.
• Schema: why a connected term survives pruning.
• Inquiry Based Learning: the loop a failed reverse explanation opens.
• Memory Handling: relationships-before-facts on intake, not only on output.
• Theme First Text Analysis: the same ordering at essay scale.

Open questions

• What should a pass leave behind: an answer sheet, a kept map, the audio, or a short reflection log? Only two points are settled: the doodle is disposable, and recording an early pass is worth it.
• How should this run on procedural, weakly interdependent material, computational procedures and discrete techniques, where part practice has the better evidence?
• Whether label-last produces better listener memory than term-then-definition.

Sources

• Swanson, R. A., & Law, B. (1993). Whole-part-whole learning model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(1), 43–53. Free PDF: https://richardswanson.com/publications/Swanson(1993)Whole-Part.pdf
• Knowles, M., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. The Adult Learner, chapter “Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model” (ch. 18, 6th ed.). https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780080481913-18/whole-part-whole-learning-model-malcolm-knowles-elwood-holton-iii-richard-swanson
• Kobayashi, K. (2019). Learning by preparing-to-teach and teaching: a meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(3). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpr.12221
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288.
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75–85. Preparing to teach, and actually teaching, beat restudy. The speaker-side of reverse explanation is that test with the word itself removed as a fallback.
• Bisra, K., Liu, Q., Nesbit, J. C., Salimi, F., & Winne, P. H. (2018). Inducing self-explanation: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 703–725. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-018-9434-x Producing the meaning before the label is a generation; g = 0.55. This is adjacent support for the speaker, not a trial of label-last for the listener.
• Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562. Free PDF: https://cogdevlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/rozenblit%20&%20keil%20%202002.pdf Plain-language entry: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-illusion-of-explanatory-depth
• Carrell, S. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 409–432. Free PDF: https://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/scarrell/profqual2.pdf
• Nickow, A., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). The impressive effects of tutoring on PreK-12 learning. NBER w27476. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27476/w27476.pdf
• Bailey, D., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., & Yu, W. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 7–39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29371909/
• Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25150680/
• Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: a temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102.
• Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.
• Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710–756.
• Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998.
• Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge. JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194; and Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008) on the same illusion.
• Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning.
• MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon. JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 671–685.
• Fontana, F. E., Furtado, O., Mazzardo, O., & Gallagher, J. D. (2009). Whole and part practice: a meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109(2), 517–530. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20038005/ Carrying Naylor, J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1963), the task complexity/organisation hypothesis.
• Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Free PDF: https://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/rid=1Q2PTM7HL-26LTFBX-9YN8/Krathwohl%202002.pdf
• Probing internal assumptions of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. CBE: Life Sciences Education (2021). https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0170
• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Advance organizers and meaningful reception are the neighbouring family, concept before vocabulary, not a trial of this exact label-last protocol.