Practice testing is effective across all age groups, including lower elementary school, though some age-related increases in effectiveness emerge¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Meta-analyses show practice testing benefits learning (0.50 SDs vs restudy; 0.60–0.70 SDs vs no-activity controls), with negligible differences across elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students. → Garvin Brod 2021

Evidence¶

Garvin Brod 2021¶

Garvin Brod. (2021). Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9

q3 · i2 · review · r3

The review reports meta-analyses of practice testing: Rowland (2014) found an effect size of 0.50 SDs against restudy controls, and Adesope and Trevisan (2017) found effect sizes between 0.60 SDs and 0.70 SDs when no-activity controls were also included, with negligible differences across age groups.

"A meta-analysis (Rowland 2014) that took into account unpublished studies revealed a moderately strong effect size (0.50 SDs) for studies that compared testing with a restudy control condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The learning benefit of control over studying emerges around age six and increases across the elementary-school years — related
• Generating questions is effective for university students but likely ineffective for younger elementary students, working at intermediate ages only with instructional scaffolding — related
• Self-explanation benefits learning across ages, but evidence is mixed for elementary-school children and effects shrink when time on task is equated — related