A learning method for all: The testing effect is independent of cognitive ability.

Abstract

The testing effect, defined as the positive effect of retrieval practice (i.e., self-testing) on long-term memory retention relative to other ways to support learning, is a robust empirical phenomenon. Despite substantial scientific evidence for the testing effect, less is known about its effectiveness in relation to individual differences in cognitive ability. In the present study, we examine whether the effect of retrieval practice is beneficial independent of cognitive ability using behavioral and brain imaging data. In a within-subject design, upper-secondary students learned Swahili–Swedish word pairs through retrieval practice and study. The testing effects were assessed at a direct test and for a subsample after 1- and 4-weeks retention intervals, respectively. Another subsample performed the 1-week retention test during functional MRI (fMRI). Memory retention was analyzed in relation to an educationally relevant composite score dividing participants into low, intermediate, and high cognitive-ability groups. We provide behavioral evidence that the testing effect is independent of cognitive ability. The fMRI findings confirmed a general effectiveness of retrieval practice by showing that brain regions associated with successful retrieval of conceptual representations and semantic processing were more strongly engaged after retrieval practice in all cognitive-ability groups. It is argued that the advantages of retrieval practice should be conveyed to all teachers and students.

Gaining Mathematical Understanding: The Effects of Creative Mathematical Reasoning and Cognitive Proficiency

“…The performance difference between retrieval practice and other ways of attaining information-most commonly re-reading-is denoted as the "testing effect." The testing effect is supported by both behavioral and functional fMRI evidence (for overviews, see Dunlosky et al, 2013;van den Broek et al, 2016;Adesope et al, 2017;Antony et al, 2017;Moreira et al, 2019;Jonsson et al, 2020). Research that currently underway shows that measures of brain activity following the testing effect (retrieval practice > study) and the "CMR effect" (CMR > AR) indicate that the same brain areas are activated.…”

Training College Students to Use Learning Strategies: A Framework and Pilot Course

“…Importantly, evidence suggests that at least some of the learning strategies identified above (see Knowledge in the course description) are beneficial irrespective of cognitive ability. For instance, retrieval practice shows benefits for low-, medium-, and high-cognitive ability students (as assessed by a comprehensive composite of fluid intelligence, working memory, short-term memory, and episodic memory scores, among others; Jonsson et al, 2020; see also Bertilsson et al, 2020), and mnemonics provides comparable benefits for students with low-, medium-, and highlearning ability levels (for vocabulary learning; Pressley et al, 1980). Armed with effective learning strategies and the commitment to use them, students who face inequities in instructional, environmental, or personal contexts-or those at lower cognitive ability levelscould plausibly show significant gains in achievement (e.g., see Fink et al, 2018).…”

Effects on brain activity after creative mathematical reasoning when considering individual differences in cognitive ability

“…The current study is part of a large data collection aimed at answering questions related to cognitive learning strategies (see also Jonsson et al, 2020a;Jonsson, Wiklund-Hörnqvist, Stenlund, Andersson, & Nyberg, 2020b;Wiklund-Hornqvist, Stillesjö, Andersson, Jonsson, & Nyberg, 2021). At the outset, 324 pupils were recruited for the data collection from third year classes in local upper secondary schools.…”

“…Importantly, each remaining participant in the current fMRI study (N = 70) was categorized as low (n = 17), intermediate (n = 21) or high (n = 32) relative to the larger sample, making the categorization of participants in the current study less biased and more robust. In addition, a rationale for categorizing the participants in the current study into the three groups was to be able to relate to the study by Jonsson et al (2020b) also theoretically. Jonsson and colleagues observed that the magnitude of the testing effect (the effect of another active learning method which compares vocabulary learning using retrieval practice with study) was independent of cognitive ability (low/intermediate/high), and we wanted to be able to investigate whether similar conclusions would follow when comparing CMR to AR (i.e.…”

“…the CMR-effect). For details concerning distribution and intercorrelations of the cognitive tests, and details of the PCA, see Jonsson et al (2020b).…”