For a highly coherent text, taking a fill-in-the-blank practice test yields no retention benefit and does not slow forgetting compared to restudy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 1 with a coherent black hole text, neither the main effect of learning condition nor the learning condition × retention interval interaction was significant, so testing did not slow the rate of forgetting relative to restudy. → de Jonge 2015

Evidence¶

de Jonge 2015¶

de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2015). The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9300-z

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1, a 2×2 between-subjects design (restudy vs. testing; 5-min vs. 1-week interval) with 64 psychology students. Recall was 71% vs. 69% at 5 min and 48% vs. 50% at 1 week; "both F<1" for condition and interaction.

"The main effect of learning condition and the learning condition × retention interval interaction did not reach the level of statistical significance (both F<1). Thus, we did not find a difference in the rate of forgetting between the restudy and the testing condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Disrupting text coherence lowered both practice-test and retention-test performance — related
• For incoherent text presented as a list of facts, testing slows the rate of forgetting compared to restudy — related
• Testing effect disappears for a coherent complex text but reappears, as reduced forgetting, when the same sentences are scrambled — a broader claim this one bears on
• The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments — related
• Taking a fill-in-the-blank test is more time-consuming than restudying the same material — related