Testing effect disappears for a coherent complex text but reappears, as reduced forgetting, when the same sentences are scrambled¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? With a coherent, high element interactivity science text, testing showed no benefit over restudy on the final test. → van Gog 2015 q2 i? When the same sentences were presented in scrambled order, reducing element interactivity, testing slowed the rate of forgetting compared to restudy. → van Gog 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

van Gog 2015¶

van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not New, but Nearly Forgotten: the Testing Effect Decreases or even Disappears as the Complexity of Learning Materials Increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's account of De Jonge et al.'s experiment 1: university students studied a coherent 1070-word science text and then restudied or took a fill-in-the-gap test, with the final test administered immediately or "after 1 week. The results of experiment 1 showed no testing effect."

"the other half completed the final test after 1 week. The results of experiment 1 showed no testing effect."

van Gog 2015 (2)¶

van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not New, but Nearly Forgotten: the Testing Effect Decreases or even Disappears as the Complexity of Learning Materials Increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's account of De Jonge et al.'s experiment 2, which used the same material with sentences in scrambled order: "a benefit of testing was found in experiment 2", but only as "testing slowed down the rate of forgetting compared to restudy".

"with the sentences being learned in isolation, without reference to other elements of the text, a benefit of testing was found in experiment 2, albeit only in the sense that testing slowed down the rate of forgetting compared to restudy"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The argument that retrieval practice effects do not occur with materials high in element interactivity is contested, and the chapter judges its research base not convincing — related
• Retrieval practice produces reliable positive effects at short delays, although some forgetting must set in so that the final test is not at ceiling — related
• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — reports the opposite
• 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
• Testing benefits retention over a conservative restudy control, establishing the testing effect as robust — reports the opposite
• For a highly coherent text, taking a fill-in-the-blank practice test yields no retention benefit and does not slow forgetting compared to restudy — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• For incoherent text presented as a list of facts, testing slows the rate of forgetting compared to restudy — related