RELEARNING · SAVINGS · FORGOTTEN WORDS · RESIDUAL MEMORY · VOCABULARY RESTORATION · RECALL FAILURE · MEMORY STRENGTH
Relearning is learning again after performance has weakened or apparently disappeared. Savings is the reduction in effort needed to relearn previously studied material compared with learning it the first time. In vocabulary, savings explains why a word that seems completely forgotten can sometimes return after one or two prompts while a genuinely new word requires many encounters.
This distinction matters because ordinary recall is threshold-based. A word can fall below the threshold for free recall while residual form, meaning, familiarity or cue connections remain. Failed recall therefore does not prove that the memory trace is zero.
This guide explains relearning, savings, residual memory, forgetting, recognition savings, form savings, semantic savings, cue-dependent restoration, interference, metacognition and vocabulary maintenance. Existing eduKateSG articles on retention, forgetting and retrieval remain untouched.
Forgotten is not always gone. Sometimes memory is waiting for the smallest useful hint.
2. Relearning is not starting over
A forgotten word often returns faster than a truly novel word because earlier learning left residual structure. Relearning speed is therefore evidence about memory even when free recall fails.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
3. Savings
Savings is the reduction in learning effort needed during relearning compared with original learning. Ebbinghaus used fewer repetitions during relearning as an indirect measure of what remained in memory.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
4. Recall can reach zero before learning reaches zero
A learner may fail to produce the target yet still recognise it, respond faster to it or relearn it quickly. Behaviour can therefore reveal residual memory beneath apparent forgetting.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
5. Form savings
Spelling or pronunciation can be restored faster because partial form representations remain even when the full lexical item is inaccessible.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
6. Meaning savings
A learner may rapidly recognise the old meaning once shown, indicating residual semantic traces.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
7. Collocational savings
Previously learned phrase partners can return faster on relearning than completely new collocations.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
8. Morphological savings
A forgotten derivative can relearn quickly when the base and affixes remain familiar.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
9. Domain savings
Vocabulary once learned deeply in a subject can reappear rapidly when the learner re-enters the domain after years away.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
10. Recognition savings
A word that cannot be recalled may still show faster recognition, suggesting that memory strength has fallen below one task’s threshold but not disappeared.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
11. Cued-recall savings
A first letter, translation or definition may recover an item that free recall cannot. Cue sensitivity can reveal residual access routes.
The practical implication is to measure what remains before deciding how much reteaching is necessary. Relearning should exploit surviving structure instead of assuming the learner has returned to zero.
12. Savings and spacing
Well-spaced original learning tends to create more durable traces, which can make later restoration easier even after long disuse.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
13. Savings and depth
Richly encoded words may leave more routes for relearning because meaning, form, morphology and context can all provide partial support.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
14. Savings and interference
A target can appear forgotten because a competitor blocks access. Relearning may be unusually fast once the interfering alternative is separated.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
15. Savings and metacognition
Learners often interpret failed recall as total loss. Measuring relearning can produce a more accurate view and reduce unnecessary restart-from-zero study.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
16. Savings in multilingual learning
A forgotten L2 word may return quickly because the concept, cognate or translation mapping remains partly available.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
17. Savings and age
Older knowledge can show surprisingly strong savings even when conscious recall feels weak. The relevant question is how much support restores the representation.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
18. Savings versus mastery
Fast relearning does not mean the word is fully retained. It means prior learning reduced the cost of restoration.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
19. Teaching
When an old word reappears, test before reteaching everything. If partial traces survive, use targeted prompts and rapid reconstruction rather than full beginner instruction.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
20. AI-era relearning
AI can instantly supply forgotten words, but the better educational move is often to probe residual memory first, then use the smallest hint needed to restore the item.
Savings is strongest evidence when the learner needs fewer trials, weaker cues or less time than a matched first-learning condition. Familiarity alone is suggestive but not sufficient.
21. Relearning casebook — Cases 1–20
1. Word forgotten after summer break
Mechanism: long-delay attrition. Residual state: meaning vaguely familiar. First move: test recognition before reteaching.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
2. Travel vocabulary forgotten after a year
Mechanism: low-use attrition. Residual state: context memory may remain. First move: relearn through scenario cues.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
3. Technical term forgotten after leaving course
Mechanism: domain attrition. Residual state: concept may remain stronger than form. First move: cue with definition and domain context.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
4. Old spelling word cannot be produced
Mechanism: orthographic decay. Residual state: visual familiarity survives. First move: use partial spelling cue.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
5. Old pronunciation is fuzzy
Mechanism: phonological decay. Residual state: meaning intact. First move: listen then reproduce from memory.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
6. Phrasal verb forgotten
Mechanism: multiword decay. Residual state: base verb known. First move: cue particle contrast.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
7. Idiom forgotten
Mechanism: formulaic attrition. Residual state: meaning may be recognisable. First move: reconstruct full phrase.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
8. Derivative forgotten
Mechanism: morphological attrition. Residual state: base known. First move: rebuild from root + affix.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
9. False friend corrected years ago returns
Mechanism: interference relapse. Residual state: correct mapping may remain weakly. First move: contrast old error and target.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
10. Rare synonym forgotten
Mechanism: low-frequency attrition. Residual state: little natural maintenance. First move: decide if relearning is worth it.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
11. Academic word returns during reading
Mechanism: recognition savings. Residual state: free recall still weak. First move: promote with productive retrieval.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
12. Learner recognises word immediately once shown
Mechanism: strong residual familiarity. Residual state: trace below free-recall threshold. First move: test delayed recall after one review.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
13. Learner needs only first letter
Mechanism: cue-sensitive residual memory. Residual state: partial access. First move: fade first-letter cue.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
14. Learner needs translation cue
Mechanism: L1-supported residual trace. Residual state: monolingual route weak. First move: rebuild definition-based access.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
15. Learner needs original picture
Mechanism: episodic cue dependence. Residual state: semantic access fragile. First move: add new contexts.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
16. Learner relearns in two trials vs ten originally
Mechanism: large savings. Residual state: strong residual structure. First move: use shorter restoration cycle.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
17. Learner needs almost full original practice
Mechanism: small savings. Residual state: weak residual trace. First move: rebuild more comprehensively.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
18. Learner relearns old word faster than matched new word
Mechanism: savings evidence. Residual state: prior trace likely present. First move: measure across delay.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
19. Old word feels familiar but answer wrong
Mechanism: misleading residual trace. Residual state: competitor may dominate. First move: contrast correct mapping.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
20. Word family member returns quickly
Mechanism: morphological savings. Residual state: family network supports. First move: retrieve neighbouring forms.
Baseline: test free recall before giving help. This creates a clean record of what the learner can produce independently.
Minimal cue: provide the smallest useful prompt rather than the full answer. The amount of help needed reveals how much structure remains accessible.
Savings measure: compare restoration effort with the effort originally required or with a genuinely new matched word.
Delayed check: retest after restoration. Fast relearning matters educationally only if the rebuilt access survives beyond the immediate session.
22. Relearning casebook — Cases 21–40
21. Cognate returns quickly
Mechanism: cross-language support. Residual state: form-meaning mapping partially retained. First move: verify exact meaning.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
22. False cognate returns wrong
Mechanism: negative transfer. Residual state: old error trace persists. First move: relearn with inhibition/contrast.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
23. Child relearns story word months later
Mechanism: episodic savings. Residual state: story trace supports. First move: generalise beyond story.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
24. Adult relearns school science term
Mechanism: semantic savings. Residual state: concept retained. First move: restore technical label.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
25. Musician relearns theory term
Mechanism: expertise savings. Residual state: domain schema retained. First move: attach label to known concept.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
26. Programmer relearns old language keyword
Mechanism: procedural/domain savings. Residual state: usage pattern survives. First move: restore syntax examples.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
27. Reader relearns archaic literary word
Mechanism: receptive savings. Residual state: form recognition survives. First move: keep receptive goal.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
28. Speaker relearns childhood L2 word
Mechanism: early-acquisition residual trace. Residual state: phonology may revive fast. First move: test spontaneous access.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
29. Spelling comes back before meaning
Mechanism: form savings. Residual state: semantic link weaker. First move: reconnect form to meaning.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
30. Meaning comes back before spelling
Mechanism: semantic savings. Residual state: orthography weaker. First move: spell from meaning.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
31. Pronunciation comes back before spelling
Mechanism: oral savings. Residual state: print mapping weak. First move: orthographic retrieval.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
32. Writing use returns before speaking
Mechanism: mode-specific savings. Residual state: oral access lower. First move: spoken retrieval practice.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
33. Speaking use returns before writing
Mechanism: oral savings. Residual state: spelling weak. First move: dictation and writing.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
34. Definition recognised, example not
Mechanism: semantic core savings. Residual state: usage details lost. First move: rebuild collocations.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
35. Collocation recognised, definition weak
Mechanism: phrase memory savings. Residual state: semantic explanation weak. First move: self-explain phrase.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
36. Old flashcard cue works
Mechanism: cue-specific savings. Residual state: narrow route. First move: add alternative cues.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
37. New cue fails
Mechanism: transfer weakness. Residual state: memory tied to old prompt. First move: vary cues.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
38. Word returns after seeing first syllable
Mechanism: phonological savings. Residual state: partial sound trace. First move: fade syllable cue.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
39. Word returns after seeing suffix
Mechanism: morphological savings. Residual state: family trace. First move: retrieve base and category.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
40. Word returns after category cue
Mechanism: semantic savings. Residual state: conceptual network intact. First move: move to free recall.
Component savings: separate meaning, spelling, pronunciation, grammar and collocation. One component may show strong savings while another needs full rebuilding.
Cue-gradient test: move from broad semantic cue to first letter to partial form only if needed. A shallower cue requirement indicates stronger residual access.
Interference test: identify whether the old target is absent or merely blocked by a stronger competitor. Competition can make a stored word look forgotten.
Re-entry plan: once restored, return the word to spacing at an interval shorter than before the lapse, then expand again after successful retrieval.
23. Relearning casebook — Cases 41–60
41. Word returns after synonym cue
Mechanism: semantic-neighbour support. Residual state: target selection weak. First move: contrast target vs synonym.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
42. Word returns after opposite cue
Mechanism: antonymic route. Residual state: network remains. First move: strengthen direct access.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
43. Word returns after sentence frame
Mechanism: syntactic/collocational savings. Residual state: context route intact. First move: fade frame later.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
44. Word returns after domain heading
Mechanism: topic cue. Residual state: contextual memory survives. First move: test outside topic.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
45. Word returns after emotional story cue
Mechanism: episodic savings. Residual state: episode strong. First move: abstract meaning later.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
46. Word returns after seeing handwriting
Mechanism: visual-context savings. Residual state: surface cue specific. First move: change presentation.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
47. Old word is faster to verify than novel word
Mechanism: recognition savings. Residual state: implicit residual familiarity. First move: add productive test.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
48. Old word is remembered after one night’s review
Mechanism: rapid restoration. Residual state: trace reactivated. First move: space next review.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
49. Old word fades again immediately
Mechanism: weak restoration. Residual state: review too shallow. First move: increase retrieval depth.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
50. Relearning creates stronger second retention
Mechanism: restudy benefit. Residual state: trace rebuilt. First move: extend spacing.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
51. Relearning produces same old error
Mechanism: maladaptive savings. Residual state: wrong mapping strongly retained. First move: explicitly overwrite contrast.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
52. Learner says ‘I never learned this’ but relearns fast
Mechanism: metacognitive underestimate. Residual state: implicit residual memory. First move: show savings evidence.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
53. Learner says ‘I still know this’ but relearns slowly
Mechanism: metacognitive overestimate. Residual state: familiarity without usable trace. First move: rebuild from basics.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
54. Word omitted from practice for months
Mechanism: maintenance gap. Residual state: savings depends on prior depth. First move: test before reteach.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
55. Word used occasionally in environment
Mechanism: natural spaced maintenance. Residual state: high savings/retention. First move: reduce deliberate review.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
56. Word learned with many contexts
Mechanism: distributed semantic trace. Residual state: good savings. First move: restore with varied cue.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
57. Word learned only with one context
Mechanism: episodic trace. Residual state: cue-bound savings. First move: restore then diversify.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
58. Word learned through generation
Mechanism: generative trace. Residual state: potentially stronger savings. First move: test free recall.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
59. Word learned by copying
Mechanism: surface trace. Residual state: weak savings. First move: rebuild via retrieval.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
60. Word forgotten after stress/exam gap
Mechanism: temporary access loss possible. Residual state: storage may remain. First move: test across conditions.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
61. Word returns spontaneously later
Mechanism: delayed spontaneous recovery. Residual state: trace survived. First move: capture and reinforce.
Metacognitive test: ask the learner to predict how quickly the item will return. Compare confidence with actual relearning speed to calibrate judgments of forgetting.
Transfer test: after relearning, move the word into a new sentence or mode. Restoration tied only to the original cue is weaker than portable relearning.
Maintenance decision: if the word repeatedly falls out despite low future value, downgrade the goal to receptive knowledge. Savings does not mean every item deserves permanent productive maintenance.
Opportunity-cost check: compare the time required to restore this item with the value of learning a new higher-utility word.
24. Relearning and savings protocol
1. Word forgotten after summer break
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test recognition before reteaching. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—meaning vaguely familiar—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
2. Travel vocabulary forgotten after a year
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use relearn through scenario cues. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—context memory may remain—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
3. Technical term forgotten after leaving course
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use cue with definition and domain context. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—concept may remain stronger than form—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
4. Old spelling word cannot be produced
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use use partial spelling cue. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—visual familiarity survives—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
5. Old pronunciation is fuzzy
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use listen then reproduce from memory. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—meaning intact—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
6. Phrasal verb forgotten
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use cue particle contrast. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—base verb known—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
7. Idiom forgotten
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use reconstruct full phrase. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—meaning may be recognisable—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
8. Derivative forgotten
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use rebuild from root + affix. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—base known—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
9. False friend corrected years ago returns
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use contrast old error and target. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—correct mapping may remain weakly—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
10. Rare synonym forgotten
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use decide if relearning is worth it. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—little natural maintenance—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
11. Academic word returns during reading
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use promote with productive retrieval. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—free recall still weak—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
12. Learner recognises word immediately once shown
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test delayed recall after one review. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—trace below free-recall threshold—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
13. Learner needs only first letter
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use fade first-letter cue. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—partial access—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
14. Learner needs translation cue
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use rebuild definition-based access. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—monolingual route weak—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
15. Learner needs original picture
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use add new contexts. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—semantic access fragile—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
16. Learner relearns in two trials vs ten originally
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use use shorter restoration cycle. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—strong residual structure—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
17. Learner needs almost full original practice
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use rebuild more comprehensively. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—weak residual trace—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
18. Learner relearns old word faster than matched new word
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use measure across delay. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—prior trace likely present—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
19. Old word feels familiar but answer wrong
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use contrast correct mapping. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—competitor may dominate—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
20. Word family member returns quickly
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use retrieve neighbouring forms. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—family network supports—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
21. Cognate returns quickly
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use verify exact meaning. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—form-meaning mapping partially retained—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
22. False cognate returns wrong
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use relearn with inhibition/contrast. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—old error trace persists—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
23. Child relearns story word months later
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use generalise beyond story. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—story trace supports—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
24. Adult relearns school science term
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use restore technical label. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—concept retained—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
25. Musician relearns theory term
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use attach label to known concept. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—domain schema retained—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
26. Programmer relearns old language keyword
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use restore syntax examples. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—usage pattern survives—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
27. Reader relearns archaic literary word
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use keep receptive goal. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—form recognition survives—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
28. Speaker relearns childhood L2 word
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test spontaneous access. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—phonology may revive fast—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
29. Spelling comes back before meaning
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use reconnect form to meaning. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—semantic link weaker—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
30. Meaning comes back before spelling
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use spell from meaning. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—orthography weaker—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
31. Pronunciation comes back before spelling
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use orthographic retrieval. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—print mapping weak—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
32. Writing use returns before speaking
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use spoken retrieval practice. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—oral access lower—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
33. Speaking use returns before writing
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use dictation and writing. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—spelling weak—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
34. Definition recognised, example not
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use rebuild collocations. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—usage details lost—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
35. Collocation recognised, definition weak
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use self-explain phrase. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—semantic explanation weak—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
36. Old flashcard cue works
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use add alternative cues. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—narrow route—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
37. New cue fails
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use vary cues. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—memory tied to old prompt—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
38. Word returns after seeing first syllable
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use fade syllable cue. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—partial sound trace—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
39. Word returns after seeing suffix
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use retrieve base and category. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—family trace—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
40. Word returns after category cue
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use move to free recall. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—conceptual network intact—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
41. Word returns after synonym cue
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use contrast target vs synonym. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—target selection weak—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
42. Word returns after opposite cue
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use strengthen direct access. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—network remains—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
43. Word returns after sentence frame
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use fade frame later. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—context route intact—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
44. Word returns after domain heading
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test outside topic. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—contextual memory survives—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
45. Word returns after emotional story cue
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use abstract meaning later. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—episode strong—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
46. Word returns after seeing handwriting
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use change presentation. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—surface cue specific—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
47. Old word is faster to verify than novel word
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use add productive test. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—implicit residual familiarity—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
48. Old word is remembered after one night’s review
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use space next review. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—trace reactivated—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
49. Old word fades again immediately
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use increase retrieval depth. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—review too shallow—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
50. Relearning creates stronger second retention
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use extend spacing. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—trace rebuilt—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
51. Relearning produces same old error
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use explicitly overwrite contrast. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—wrong mapping strongly retained—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
52. Learner says ‘I never learned this’ but relearns fast
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use show savings evidence. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—implicit residual memory—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
53. Learner says ‘I still know this’ but relearns slowly
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use rebuild from basics. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—familiarity without usable trace—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
54. Word omitted from practice for months
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test before reteach. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—savings depends on prior depth—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
55. Word used occasionally in environment
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use reduce deliberate review. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—high savings/retention—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
56. Word learned with many contexts
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use restore with varied cue. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—good savings—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
57. Word learned only with one context
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use restore then diversify. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—cue-bound savings—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
58. Word learned through generation
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test free recall. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—potentially stronger savings—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
59. Word learned by copying
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use rebuild via retrieval. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—weak savings—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
60. Word forgotten after stress/exam gap
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use test across conditions. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—storage may remain—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
61. Word returns spontaneously later
Step 1 — probe: begin with free recall, then recognition, then progressively stronger cues. Do not reveal the answer until the learner has shown which residual routes remain.
Step 2 — restore: use capture and reinforce. Re-establish the weakest missing link rather than repeating every original learning activity.
Step 3 — verify savings: note how much faster or easier relearning is than first learning. The residual state—trace survived—should predict some advantage if earlier learning survives.
Step 4 — reconsolidate: retrieve again after a delay and in a changed context so the restored word becomes durable rather than briefly reactivated.
25. Relearning support ladder
1. Free recall first
Give only the meaning, concept or communicative need. If the learner retrieves the word unaided, no relearning is required—only future spacing.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
2. Broad semantic cue
Provide a category, contrast or scenario without revealing form. Success here shows semantic structure remains even when direct lexical access is weak.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
3. Collocational cue
Provide a natural phrase frame with one blank. This tests whether phrase-level memory can restore the target.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
4. First-letter cue
Give the first letter only after semantic cues fail. Success indicates partial form access.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
5. First-syllable cue
Provide more phonological form if needed. This is stronger support and therefore weaker evidence of independent retrieval.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
6. Morphological cue
Reveal a root or affix when family knowledge may remain. This is especially useful for derivatives.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
7. Translation cue
Use L1 only when cross-language mapping is a legitimate part of the learner’s system. Then rebuild monolingual access afterward.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
8. Recognition choice
Show the target among plausible alternatives. Correct recognition indicates residual memory but still requires productive restoration.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
9. Full answer with immediate retrieval
If all cues fail, show the answer briefly, hide it, and require retrieval rather than prolonged rereading.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
10. Relearn in a new context
After restoration, change the sentence, topic or mode so the learner does not simply reattach the word to the old cue.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
11. Delayed restoration test
Return later without cues. The goal is not successful supported relearning but regained independent access.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
12. Maintenance decision
If repeated restoration is cheap and the word is useful, keep it. If restoration is costly and future value is low, receptive knowledge may be enough.
Record the weakest cue that produced success. Over later sessions, aim to move upward toward weaker support. Relearning is becoming more efficient when less information is needed to recover the item and the restored access lasts longer.
26. Frequently asked questions
What is relearning?
Learning previously studied material again after access has weakened.
What is savings?
Reduced time or repetitions needed to relearn compared with original learning.
Can a word be forgotten but still leave a trace?
Yes. Recognition, cue responsiveness and faster relearning can reveal residual memory.
Why is relearning faster?
Earlier learning may leave partial form, meaning or association structure.
Is familiarity the same as savings?
No. Familiarity is subjective; savings is demonstrated by reduced relearning cost.
Should I restart forgotten vocabulary from zero?
Not automatically. Probe what remains first.
Can wrong answers also show savings?
Yes. Old errors can return rapidly, which is why contrastive correction matters.
Does spacing affect later relearning?
Deeper and more distributed original learning often leaves more durable residual structure.
When should an old word be dropped?
When future value is low and maintenance cost is repeatedly high.
What is the simplest rule?
Test first, give the smallest hint, measure how fast the word comes back, then space the restored item.
27. Research grounding
The classic savings method associated with Ebbinghaus measures memory indirectly by comparing the repetitions needed for original learning with the repetitions needed for relearning after a delay. Cambridge historical material summarises this logic: material that could no longer be fully recalled still required fewer repetitions to relearn, revealing residual memory. Modern vocabulary research likewise distinguishes immediate knowledge, learning gain and rate of forgetting, showing that later performance reflects both word properties and learner experience.
- Cambridge — Ebbinghaus and the savings method
- Cambridge — Predictors of vocabulary learning and forgetting
28. eduKateSG routes
29. Final model
Relearning reveals what ordinary recall can hide. A word may be inaccessible yet still leave enough structure to return faster than a truly novel item.
The efficient response to forgetting is diagnostic: test what remains, restore the weakest missing link, and use savings to reduce unnecessary reteaching.
Do not ask only whether the word was forgotten. Ask how much faster it comes back.
30. Case-specific restoration comparisons
1. Restoration comparison — Word forgotten after summer break
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If meaning vaguely familiar is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using test recognition before reteaching, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
2. Restoration comparison — Travel vocabulary forgotten after a year
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If context memory may remain is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using relearn through scenario cues, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
3. Restoration comparison — Technical term forgotten after leaving course
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If concept may remain stronger than form is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using cue with definition and domain context, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
4. Restoration comparison — Old spelling word cannot be produced
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If visual familiarity survives is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using use partial spelling cue, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
5. Restoration comparison — Old pronunciation is fuzzy
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If meaning intact is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using listen then reproduce from memory, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
6. Restoration comparison — Phrasal verb forgotten
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If base verb known is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using cue particle contrast, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
7. Restoration comparison — Idiom forgotten
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If meaning may be recognisable is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using reconstruct full phrase, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
8. Restoration comparison — Derivative forgotten
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If base known is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using rebuild from root + affix, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
9. Restoration comparison — False friend corrected years ago returns
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If correct mapping may remain weakly is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using contrast old error and target, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
10. Restoration comparison — Rare synonym forgotten
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If little natural maintenance is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using decide if relearning is worth it, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
11. Restoration comparison — Academic word returns during reading
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If free recall still weak is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using promote with productive retrieval, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
12. Restoration comparison — Learner recognises word immediately once shown
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If trace below free-recall threshold is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using test delayed recall after one review, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
13. Restoration comparison — Learner needs only first letter
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If partial access is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using fade first-letter cue, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
14. Restoration comparison — Learner needs translation cue
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If monolingual route weak is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using rebuild definition-based access, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
15. Restoration comparison — Learner needs original picture
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If semantic access fragile is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using add new contexts, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
16. Restoration comparison — Learner relearns in two trials vs ten originally
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If strong residual structure is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using use shorter restoration cycle, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
17. Restoration comparison — Learner needs almost full original practice
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If weak residual trace is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using rebuild more comprehensively, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
18. Restoration comparison — Learner relearns old word faster than matched new word
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If prior trace likely present is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using measure across delay, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
19. Restoration comparison — Old word feels familiar but answer wrong
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If competitor may dominate is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using contrast correct mapping, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
20. Restoration comparison — Word family member returns quickly
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If family network supports is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using retrieve neighbouring forms, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
21. Restoration comparison — Cognate returns quickly
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If form-meaning mapping partially retained is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using verify exact meaning, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
22. Restoration comparison — False cognate returns wrong
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If old error trace persists is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using relearn with inhibition/contrast, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
23. Restoration comparison — Child relearns story word months later
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If story trace supports is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using generalise beyond story, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
24. Restoration comparison — Adult relearns school science term
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If concept retained is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using restore technical label, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
25. Restoration comparison — Musician relearns theory term
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If domain schema retained is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using attach label to known concept, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
26. Restoration comparison — Programmer relearns old language keyword
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If usage pattern survives is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using restore syntax examples, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
27. Restoration comparison — Reader relearns archaic literary word
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If form recognition survives is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using keep receptive goal, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
28. Restoration comparison — Speaker relearns childhood L2 word
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If phonology may revive fast is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using test spontaneous access, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
29. Restoration comparison — Spelling comes back before meaning
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If semantic link weaker is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using reconnect form to meaning, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
30. Restoration comparison — Meaning comes back before spelling
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If orthography weaker is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using spell from meaning, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
31. Restoration comparison — Pronunciation comes back before spelling
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If print mapping weak is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using orthographic retrieval, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
32. Restoration comparison — Writing use returns before speaking
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If oral access lower is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using spoken retrieval practice, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
33. Restoration comparison — Speaking use returns before writing
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If spelling weak is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using dictation and writing, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
34. Restoration comparison — Definition recognised, example not
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If usage details lost is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using rebuild collocations, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
35. Restoration comparison — Collocation recognised, definition weak
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If semantic explanation weak is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using self-explain phrase, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
36. Restoration comparison — Old flashcard cue works
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If narrow route is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using add alternative cues, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
37. Restoration comparison — New cue fails
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If memory tied to old prompt is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using vary cues, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
38. Restoration comparison — Word returns after seeing first syllable
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If partial sound trace is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using fade syllable cue, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
39. Restoration comparison — Word returns after seeing suffix
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If family trace is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using retrieve base and category, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
40. Restoration comparison — Word returns after category cue
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If conceptual network intact is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using move to free recall, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
41. Restoration comparison — Word returns after synonym cue
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If target selection weak is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using contrast target vs synonym, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.
42. Restoration comparison — Word returns after opposite cue
Compare old and new: pair the previously studied item with a genuinely novel item of similar length and difficulty. Give both the same study opportunity, then compare how quickly the old item reaches correct recall. Faster restoration suggests savings rather than simple familiarity.
Compare cue strength: note whether the old item can be recovered from a weaker cue than the new item. If network remains is genuine residual memory, the learner should need less information than a first-time learner would.
Future maintenance: after using strengthen direct access, retest after a delay. If the item again collapses, the restoration was too shallow; if it survives, place it back into a normal spacing schedule and reduce support.