Answer First or Google First? Using the Internet in ways that Enhance, not Impair, One’s Subsequent Retention of Needed Information
Abstract
Technological advances have given us tools—Google, in particular—that can both augment and free up our cognitive resources. Research has demonstrated, however, that some cognitive costs may arise from our reliance on such external memories. We examined whether pretesting—asking participants to solve a problem before consulting Google for needed information—can enhance participants’ subsequent recall for the searched-for content as well as for relevant information previously studied. Two groups of participants, one with no programming knowledge and one with some programming knowledge, learned several fundamental programming concepts in the context of a problem-solving task. On a later multiple-choice test with transfer questions, participants who attempted the task before consulting Google for help out-performed participants who were allowed to search Google right away. The benefit of attempting to solve the problem before googling appeared larger with some degree of programming experience, consistent with the notion that some prior knowledge can help learners integrate new information in ways that benefit its learning as well as that of previously studied related information.
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?
Generating answers before consulting external resources yields superior recall compared with immediate lookup.
“Research on 'thinkbefore-search' paradigms shows that generating answers before consulting external resources yields superior recall compared with immediate lookup [5, 6], underscoring the importance of preserving productive struggle.”
From Do Gains from Generative AI-Enabled Adaptive Pretesting Persist? Evidence from a Retention Study (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Cites
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7 · Cited by 5,457 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Additionally, the Internet has become a convenient way to offload information that we think we may need in the future, rather than trying to store such information in our own memories (Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Nestojko et al., 2013; Risko & Gilbert, 2016).”
BackgroundTest-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x · Cited by 2,867 · see citing works
Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1207745 · Cited by 1,762 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Research has suggested that people tend to rely on the Internet to store and access information in a way that may reduce the extent to which they store that information internally (Marsh & Rajaram, 2019; Sparrow et al., 2011).”
BackgroundScientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543068002179 · Cited by 1,593 · see citing works
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002 · Cited by 1,502 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Additionally, the Internet has become a convenient way to offload information that we think we may need in the future, rather than trying to store such information in our own memories (Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Nestojko et al., 2013; Risko & Gilbert, 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 · Cited by 1,468 · see citing works
Self-citationExpertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction
Kalyuga, S. (2007) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3 · Cited by 1,056 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the association between prior knowledge and new learning, see also work on the expertise reversal effect, e.g., Cooper et al., 2001, exper-iment 4; Kalyuga, 2007; Leppink et al., 2012; McNamara, 2001; see also Carpenter et al., 2016; Karpicke et al., 2014 for research work on the relationship…”
BackgroundDesigning for Productive Failure
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591717 · Cited by 674 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…research demonstrating the learning benefits of guided discovery (e.g., de Jong and van Joolingen, 1998) and problem-solving attempts prior to instruction (cf. Productive Failure: Kapur, 2010; Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012; Invention Studies: Roll et al., 2009; Roll et al., 2012; Schwartz & Martin, 2004).”
BackgroundRepeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying.
Butler, A. C. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0019902 · Cited by 492 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…effect ; see Szpunar et al., 2013; Szpunar et al., 2008; Wissman et al., 2011), but also strengthened their memory traces of the recalled information itself (i.e., the testing effect ; see Agarwal et al., 2008; Butler, 2010; Hinze et al., 2013; McDaniel et al., 2007; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006).”
BackgroundMcDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021782 · Cited by 360 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the learning content as opposed to simply testing memory for identical pretested factual questions; see Carpenter et al., 2018; Geller et al., 2017; McDaniel et al., 2011; but see Carpenter & Toftness, 2017; Little & Bjork, 2016), or that such benefits were relatively limited in scope (e.g.,…”
BackgroundWhen and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?
Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
The effect of prequestions on learning from video presentations.
Carpenter, S. K., & Toftness, A. R. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.014 · Cited by 87 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…to simply testing memory for identical pretested factual questions; see Carpenter et al., 2018; Geller et al., 2017; McDaniel et al., 2011; but see Carpenter & Toftness, 2017; Little & Bjork, 2016), or that such benefits were relatively limited in scope (e.g., Hausman & Rhodes, 2018; James &…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Media, technology, and the sins of memory
Schacter, D. L. (2022) · Memory, Mind & Media · doi:10.1017/mem.2021.3 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Do Gains from Generative AI-Enabled Adaptive Pretesting Persist? Evidence from a Retention Study
Akgun, M., & Toker, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.22328
“Research on “think-before-search” paradigms shows that generating answers before consulting ex-ternal resources yields superior recall compared with immediate lookup [5, 6], underscoring the importance of preserving productive struggle.”
- Authors
- Giebl, S., Mena, S., Storm, B. C., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, USA
- Corresponding author
- Giebl, Saskia
- Venue
- Psychology Learning & Teaching
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-10-15
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-75
- ISSN
- 1475-7257 (ISSN-L)
- 2057-3022
- OpenAlex
- W3093772357
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- Google, external memory, pretesting, problem solving, memory retrieval, prior knowledge, programming learning, transfer of learning, information search, cognitive load
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