Cited by 164Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Not New, but Nearly Forgotten: the Testing Effect Decreases or even Disappears as the Complexity of Learning Materials Increases

Open access
van Gog, Tamara, Sweller, John·2015·Educational Psychology Review

Abstract

The testing effect is a finding from cognitive psychology with relevance for education. It shows that after an initial study period, taking a practice test improves long-term retention compared to not taking a test and—more interestingly—compared to restudying the learning material. Boundary conditions of the effect that have received attention include the test format, retrieval success on the initial test, the retention interval, or the spacing of tests. Another potential boundary condition concerns the complexity of learning materials, that is, the number of interacting information elements a learning task contains. This insight is not new, as research from a century ago already had indicated that the testing effect decreases as the complexity of learning materials increases, but that finding seems to have been nearly forgotten. Studies presented in this special issue suggest that the effect may even disappear when the complexity of learning material is very high. Since many learning tasks in schools are high in element interactivity, a failure to find the effect under these conditions is relevant for education. Therefore, this special issue hopes to put this potential boundary condition back on the radar and provide a starting point for discussion and future research on this topic.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Gog, T., & Sweller, J.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2015-05-16
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
247-264
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2128915986
Cited by
164
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (452‐11‐006)
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, learning complexity, element interactivity, long-term retention, practice tests, restudying, boundary conditions, retrieval practice

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