CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Education, Achievement, and GiftednessInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Differential use and effectiveness of practice testing: Who benefits and who engages?

Open access
Schwerter, Jakob, Lauermann, Fani, Brahm, Taiga, Murayama, Kou·2025·Learning and Individual Differences
DOI 10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102761
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Practice testing is an effective learning strategy, yet low-achieving students often underutilize it despite its benefits. This study investigates who benefits from and who engages in practice testing within an authentic educational setting. We collected data from 325 undergraduates (56 % self-identified as female) in a gateway mathematics course, combining survey responses, practice testing records, and exam performance (points, grades, passing). Employing regressions and prediction rule ensembles, we analyzed a comprehensive set of predictors (prior/current achievement, motivational beliefs, personality, and volitional factors). Increased practice testing was linked to improved exam performance, especially for students with moderate-to-high current achievement. Students with lower prior achievement were less likely to test themselves and required more practice testing attempts to achieve similar exam performance improvements. Predictors of practice testing included prior achievement, intrinsic value, and mastery goals. Therefore, integrating low-stakes testing with motivation-supportive interventions may reduce performance gaps and promote equity in higher education. • Practice testing benefits all students, especially higher-achieving and more motivated ones. • Low-achieving students require more attempts to achieve similar learning gains to higher-achieving peers. • Prior achievement and motivation predict students' use of practice testing and moderates its effect on exam performance. This study reveals a critical disparity in educational practices: students who are most likely to benefit from self-testing strategies are least likely to use them. Our findings reveal that this group tends to have lower intrinsic motivation and weaker mastery-approach goals, which likely hinder their engagement with self-testing. To address this disparity, interventions should focus on cultivating these key motivational prerequisites, thereby empowering low-performing students to adopt effective learning strategies. Integrating self-testing into curricula and promoting self-regulated learning skills may enhance participation among low-achieving students. These findings offer actionable insights for educators, administrators, and policymakers aiming to improve academic outcomes and promote equitable learning opportunities in higher education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102761

Cites

104 of 104 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?

  • Retrieval practice is most effective when learners engage in effortful and successful retrieval, and when motivational and self-regulatory factors support sustained engagement.

    “For instance, retrieval practice is most effective when learners engage in effortful and successful retrieval, and when motivational and self-regulatory factors support sustained engagement (Butler et al., 2017; Schwerter et al., 2025).”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Schwerter et al., 2025

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schwerter, J., Lauermann, F., Brahm, T., & Murayama, K.
Affiliations
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Schwerter, Jakob
ORCID
Venue
Learning and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-10
Volume
123
Pages
102761
ISSN
1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102761
OpenAlex
W4412938220
Cited by
3
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (PROFILNRW-2020-068)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
practice tests, self-testing, low-achieving students, exam performance, prior achievement, intrinsic motivation, mastery goals, low-stakes assessment, higher education equity, student self-regulation, student engagement, learning strategies

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