How Long-Term Memory Works and What It Means for Certification Study

What has been corrected on this page?

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 11 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   6 flagged findings: Unverified quotes attributed to Fergus Craik and John Dunlosky with no verifiable source; an unverified Cisco/CCNA behavioral case study dressing a true background fact (the real 2020 CCNA consolidation) with an unverified survey finding; an unverified Doug Rohrer '43%' figure whose in-text year (2014) contradicted the article's own reference-list year (2012) for the same study; an entirely unverified IBM internal training case study with unverified precise pass-rate figures (89% vs 67%); and a Roediger & Karpicke (2006) retention figure (80%/36%) that directly contradicted the different figures (61%/40%) cited for the SAME landmark study in a sibling article (active-recall-for-certification-study.md) -- verified via web search that 61%/40% aligns with the real published findings.

   What the page claimed

   "Memory is not determined by how long you spend with material, but by how deeply you process it..." - Fergus Craik, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto | ...retained 80% of material after one week, compared to 36% for students who only restudied. | ...candidates who used chunking strategies...reported higher confidence and better practice exam scores than those who studied topics in isolation. | A 2014 study by Doug Rohrer...found that interleaved practice...improved test scores by 43% compared to blocked practice... | A training study conducted by IBM in 2019...found that engineers who used generation-based study techniques...passed AWS and Azure certification exams at a rate of 89%, compared to 67%... | "Students overwhelmingly rely on the least effective study strategies..." - John Dunlosky, Professor of Psychology, Kent State University

   What was corrected

   De-attributed both unverified quotes (Craik and Dunlosky) into plain prose; corrected the Roediger & Karpicke retention figures from the unverified 80%/36% to the verified-accurate 61%/40%, resolving a contradiction with the sibling article active-recall-for-certification-study.md which correctly cites 61%/40%; converted the unverified Cisco/CCNA survey claim to accurately hedged language describing only the true underlying fact (the real 2020 CCNA consolidation) without the unverified survey finding; removed the unverified Rohrer '43%' figure and reconciled the in-text date (2014) with the reference-list date (2012); converted the unverified IBM case study with unverified 89%/67% pass rates to a generic illustrative statement.

   Why: Fixed 6 fabrications: two posthumous/unverified attributed quotes (Craik, Dunlosky), an unverified Cisco/CCNA survey finding grafted onto a true fact, a Rohrer statistic with an internal date contradiction, an unverified IBM case study with unverified precise pass-rate figures, and a Roediger & Karpicke retention figure that contradicted the correct figures in a sibling article (verified 61%/40% via web search).

   View the full record →

Who checked this page?

1 contributor has checked "How Long-Term Memory Works and What It Means for Certification Study" on Pass4Sure. Each name below links to that person's public CitePep profile, where every contribution they have made is listed with the exact change they proposed.