High Element Interactivity Information During Problem Solving may Lead to Failure to Obtain the Testing Effect
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The generation effect is reduced in novice learners because there are no previous schemas to work with.
“Furthermore, the generation effect is reduced in novice learners, as there are no previous schemas to work with (Leahy et al., 2015; van Gog & Sweller, 2015).”
From Does difficulty moderate learning? A comparative analysis of the desirable difficulties framework and cognitive load theory (2025) · cites this paper as Leahy et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Leahy, Wayne
- Venue
- Educational Psychology Review
- Published
- 2015-01-20
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 291-304
- ISSN
- 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-336X
- OpenAlex
- W2013802877
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8
- FWCI
- 5.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- testing effect, element interactivity, cognitive load theory, problem solving, school students, delayed testing, relearning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
