For incoherent text presented as a list of facts, testing slows the rate of forgetting compared to restudy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In Experiment 2 with scrambled, incoherent material, the learning condition × retention interval interaction was significant, with forgetting for the restudy group but no apparent decline for the testing group. → de Jonge 2015 q3 i3 Follow-up analysis showed the retention-interval effect was significant for the restudy condition (d = 1.18) but not for the testing condition. → de Jonge 2015 (2)

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Experiment 2, same 2×2 between-subjects design with 64 psychology students learning scrambled facts about black holes. The interaction had "ηp2=.06"; the restudy group forgot 31% while the testing group showed no apparent decline.

"Importantly, however, there was a significant learning condition×retention interval interaction, F(1, 64)=4.13, p<.05, ηp2=.06. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the restudy group showed a substantial amount of forgetting (31 %)."

de Jonge 2015 (2)¶

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 · i3 · causal · r2

Follow-up t-tests within Experiment 2 conditions: the restudy condition showed a significant interval effect with "d=1.18", while the testing condition showed no significant decline (t<1).

"Accordingly, follow-up analysis revealed that the effect of retention interval was significant for the restudy condition, t(30)=3.33, p<.001 ,d=1.18, but not for the testing condition (t<1)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• Testing effect disappears for a coherent complex text but reappears, as reduced forgetting, when the same sentences are scrambled — related
• The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments — related
• Scrambling sentence order successfully disrupted text coherence as measured by latent semantic analysis — related