Retrieval practice conditions produced significantly higher cognitive load than rereading¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Cognitive load was significantly lower in the rereading condition than in each of the three retrieval practice conditions, with effect sizes from d = 0.52 to d = 0.79. → Redifer 2026

Evidence¶

Redifer 2026¶

Redifer, J. L., Myers, S. J., Bae, C. L., Naas, A., & Scott, A. (2026). Testing the testing effect with advanced materials while accounting for individual differences. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09758-z

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Post-hoc Tukey comparisons following a significant condition effect on self-reported cognitive load (perceived difficulty) in the 213-participant between-subjects experiment. The reread-versus-free-recall contrast showed "mean difference = 0.55" with "d = 0.52"; the quiz and generation contrasts reached d = 0.71 and d = 0.79.

"post-hoc tests indicated that cognitive load was significantly lower in the rereading condition than in all other conditions: free recall condition, mean difference = 0.55, 95% CI [0.01, 1.08], p =.04, d = 0.52"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Working Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — related
• Rereading Is A Low Utility Study Strategy — related
• Rereading is less effective than retrieval practice — related
• Students using ChatGPT 3.5 experience lower germane cognitive load than students using Google, the strongest of the three load differences — related