The pretesting effect on text memory grows with retention interval, being largest at one week¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Within a single experiment testing 1-minute, 30-minute, and 1-week retention intervals, the pretesting effect magnitude increased with delay. → Steven C. Pan 2023

Evidence¶

Steven C. Pan 2023¶

Steven C. Pan, Shana K. Carpenter. (2023). Prequestioning and Pretesting Effects: a Review of Empirical Research, Theoretical Perspectives, and Implications for Educational Practice. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09814-5

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's account of Kliegl et al. (2022), which tested text-passage pretesting across three retention intervals in one experiment, reports the effect "grew with retention interval and was largest at a 1-week interval".

"The magnitude of the pre-instruction testing effect grew with retention interval and was largest at a 1-week interval"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Pretesting enhances learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Retention interval moderates the testing effect: effects are larger after a day or more than at shorter intervals, where individual studies vary from reliable to null or reversed — a broader claim this one bears on
• Repeatedly recalling a text without feedback or rereading produces the best one-week retention, while repeated studying leads on a final test at the end of the session — related
• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — a broader claim this one bears on