Studying with the material available during post-testing yielded higher post-test and delayed retention scores but worse transfer than retention-based studying¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Compared with the prior retention-based study, studying with materials available produced 26.3% higher post-test scores and 8.3% higher delayed retention, but 26.4% worse transfer performance. → Haavisto 2025

Evidence¶

Haavisto 2025¶

Haavisto, M., Lepola, J., & Jaakkola, T. (2025). The “simple” view of learning from illustrated texts and videos. Learning and Instruction, 100, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102200

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Cross-study comparison with the highly similar Haavisto et al. (2023) setting, not an experimental manipulation; the article reports "26.3% higher post-test scores with the material available" and "8.3% higher in the delayed retention test", while transfer was 26.4% worse.

"Unsurprisingly, the present study observed 26.3% higher post-test scores with the material available. More compellingly, participants scored 8.3% higher in the delayed retention test (without material in both studies)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Retrieval Practice Improves Transfer — related
• Falsifiable hypothesis: unrestricted AI use on deep-processing tasks will produce a product–process dissociation—higher-rated assignments but lower unaided delayed transfer — related