Retrieval practice produces better retention than restudying, with meta-analytic reviews reporting people 2.5 times as likely to remember tested information and medium-to-large classroom effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The review reports Rowland's meta-analysis of 159 studies found people were 2.5 times as likely to remember information following testing than restudying, rising to 4.35 times for free recall. → Anne M. Cleary 2026 q2 i? The review reports Agarwal et al.'s classroom-focused meta-analysis found testing enjoyed a medium to large effect over restudying in most studies. → Anne M. Cleary 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Anne M. Cleary 2026¶

Anne M. Cleary, Daniel H. Robinson. (2026). Why Growth Mindset Training Alone may not Improve Academic Outcomes: A Call for Research on Bundling Growth Mindset and Retrieval Practice Interventions. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10188-7

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review attributing this to Rowland (2014): a meta-analytic review of 159 studies found people "2.5 times as likely to remember information following testing than restudying", with the benefit rising to 4.35 times when testing involved free recall rather than recognition; no standardized effect size is printed.

"In his review, Rowland examined 159 studies and found that people were 2.5 times as likely to remember information following testing than restudying. This benefit jumps to 4.35 times as likely to remember information if the type of testing involves free recall"

Anne M. Cleary 2026 (2)¶

Anne M. Cleary, Daniel H. Robinson. (2026). Why Growth Mindset Training Alone may not Improve Academic Outcomes: A Call for Research on Bundling Growth Mindset and Retrieval Practice Interventions. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10188-7

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review attributing this to Agarwal et al. (2021): a meta-analytic review focused on testing versus restudying in actual classroom contexts found "a medium to large effect over restudying" in most studies; no numeric effect size is printed for this finding.

"Agarwal et al. ( 2021) conducted a meta-analytic review that was specifically focused on examining testing compared to restudying in actual classroom contexts and found most studies confirmed that testing enjoyed a medium to large effect over restudying."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — related
• Testing benefits retention over a conservative restudy control, establishing the testing effect as robust — a broader claim this one bears on
• Retrieval Failure Reduces Benefit — related
• Quizzing outperforms no/filler activity, fewer-question testing and restudying, with a larger advantage over no/filler activity (low reexposure) than over restudying (high reexposure); against other elaborative strategies its advantage is small and not significant. — related
• Retrieval practice and spaced retrieval improve achievement and retention by medium amounts, while interleaving helps category learning only for some materials and blocking beats it for words — related
• A systematic review of 50 classroom experiments found retrieval practice yields medium-to-large benefits in most cases, but only 6% were conducted in non-WEIRD countries — related
• The same quizzing or concept-mapping activity produces more learning when done without viewing the material, as retrieval, than while viewing it — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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 — related
• After training, d.tech teachers adopted low-stakes practice tests and spaced, interleaved practice in their classrooms — a narrower finding that bears on this claim