Testing effects hold in classrooms (g = 0.67) as in laboratories (g = 0.62), and are largest for secondary students (g = 0.83)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q4 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i2 Study setting did not moderate the effect, but educational level did: secondary students showed significantly higher effects than postsecondary students. → Adesope 2017

Evidence¶

Adesope 2017¶

Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

q4 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r?

Moderator analyses of study setting and educational level (Table 3): classroom k = 30 (g = 0.67), laboratory k = 223 (g = 0.62); primary g = 0.64, secondary g = 0.83, postsecondary g = 0.60, between-levels QΒ(4) = 50.50, p < .001, with secondary significantly higher than postsecondary.

"Studies conducted in the classroom had a moderately large weighted mean effect size (g = 0.67), similar to those in the laboratory (g = 0.62)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

- Test-enhanced learning generalizes across education levels, from elementary school (g = 0.328) through university/college (g = 0.486). — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it¶

• Educational level does not significantly moderate Gen-AI's effect on HOT, though K-12 subgroups show a larger effect (ES = 0.857) than post-secondary (ES = 0.539) — related
• Monitoring accuracy interventions show larger effects in laboratory settings than in classroom settings, but classroom effects remain significantly positive — related