Talk:Testing effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curryl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Including a statement about the importance of Feedback
Ceckersley (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC) I would like to include a statement after 'to-be-remembered information' that states 'through testing with proper feedback.'

I also think it would be a good idea to include a subsection under 'Preconditions to measure the testing effect' that would talk about the impact that feedback has on correct encoding and retrieval while using the testing effect. Right now there is no mention of feedback in the article even though it is vital to the role that the testing effect can have.


 * I agree with adding a statement to the first line and with talking more about the importance of feedback. The Retrieval success subsection already mentions it briefly, so we may be able to add it there as opposed to adding an entire new subsection. Psy250 jes85 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed it in that section, it might be helpful to make it more obvious, how about instead of combining those two statements into one sentence give the feedback its own sentence? Ceckersley (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixing typos
There are a few typos in this page that should be easy to fix. In the "Cognitive accounts of the testing effect" section, the following sentence should get rid of the world "how": The second view, provided by Karpicke and Roediger[17] studied how the effect of testing on memory retention. The next sentence should be changed to be consistent with either present or past tense: They found that re-studying or re-reading memorized information has no effect, but trying to recall the information had an effect. Psy250 jes85 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, subtle changes that allow it to flow. Ceckersley (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fix lead section
This page provides a good one-sentence summary of the testing effect, but then dives into details of the first empirical study. I think readers of the article may get confused and not fully understand what the testing effect really is until they read the rest of the wiki page. Providing one or two more sentences of detail in the beginning may help. I would even be open to moving the discussion of the Carrier and Pashler study to a new section that is not in the lead section. Psy250 jes85 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

consider giving an example of what is meant by "retrieval practice" - e.g., how self-testing with flashcards allows practice with feedback. Elizareader (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A good follow-up was given using the example of the flash cards in the second paragraph. This edit makes the concept a lot more clear than it was before. I only suggest a slight re-wording of the last sentence "The testing effect provides the largest benefit to long-term memory when the tested material is difficult enough to require effort, the retrieval success is high, and feedback with correct answers is given after testing." This sentence is a little unclear to me whether you are talking about the factors that provide the best results of the testing effect, or if testing itself is a greater benefit than other forms of studying. I would tweak this sentence to read: "The testing effect provides the greatest results on improving long-term retention when the tested material is just difficult enough to require effort, the retrieval success is high, and feedback with correct answers is given after testing." Ackelleher17 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I like your edit. I actually wanted to re-word it earlier and forgot to do so. Feel free to edit it even more if you think it is still unclear, but I think your change works nicely. Psy250 jes85 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Increase Wikipedia Visibility
I would like to increase the Testing Effect's visibility on Wikipedia by mentioning it in the page on long term memory and providing a link to this page. Ceckersley (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, can you have searches for things like "retrieval practice" automatically redirect to this page Elizareader (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You could also link this testing effect Wiki page to different researchers who are studying it. For example, one of the authors of the "Make it Stick" book, Henry L. Roediger III, is interested in testing effect. However, this page is not linked in his Wikipedia page (Although retrieval has it's own section). Adaaka (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Update Empirical Evidence Section
This section needs a little more information and fixing. As of now, only one study is presented under this section. Additionally, I think the results of this one study contradicts the results of many other studies done on the testing effect: there does exists a noticeable advantage of testing over studying in the long-term retention of material. Alex21golf (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Because the study was done so long ago, new data have contradicted this experiment. You probably noticed it already, the new study where testing is more effective than studying for is in footnote 8 Samliu365 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that testing effect may be defined in two different ways. Some researchers concentrate on testing over studying and others simply look at testing over no exposure. I had this paragraph for another research project, but if you're interested in mentioning these, you're welcome to use or do more research related to them: "In the literature, researchers have different opinions regarding what constitutes a testing effect. Some researchers, such as Glover (1989), examined the difference on final test performance between participants who were previously tested on the material and participants who did nothing. This difference is then attributed to the testing effect. Other researchers look at the effectiveness of testing over other strategies such as studying and identify a testing effect only if testing yields better retrieval than studying (Butler, 2010)."Adaaka (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the best example of empirical evidence of the testing effect. I think that the study mentioned in Make it Stick at the elementary school, as well as the author's own experiences would be far more clear and valuable examples. This would also allow this article to become linked to others, making it easier to find and the tests done in the elementary school looks at testing the material, just reviewing it and not studying it at all. --Mmbradshaw12 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Desirable Difficulties
Many studies done on the testing effect contain desirable difficulties that could differ depending on the method of the study of the experiment. For example, frequent testing would be considered a desirable difficulty over studying since testing requires students to retrieve and recall the information rather than just re-reading or looking over the information. Also, one study done on the testing effect showed that weak cues fCourtney Crump (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)or to-be-remembered information could be considered a desirable difficulty over strong cues for the same kind of information. Alex21golf (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I am curious if studying in the style of self-testing (like using cornell notes) and administered testing have different effects, since both present desirable difficulties. My hypothesis would be that as long as the difficulty can be overcome, the more difficulty one encounters while learning/testing, the better the information is solidified into long term memory. Do you know of any studies concerning this?

Also, would you agree that it would be appropriate to add a link to desirable difficulties under the See also section? Samliu365 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes! I would add a link to desirable difficulties as retrieval practice is an example of a desirable difficulty.Adaaka (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that connecting the pages via hyperlink would be the best idea to help increase understanding, its not this articles job to explain all of the background. Courtney Crump (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Courtney


 * I'm currently making the Desirable Difficulties page. I think these two pages should definitely be linked up - adding a link to Desirable Difficulties in the See Also section is a great idea! However, I would not eliminate anything from this article with the assumption that the information will be covered in the Desirable Difficulties page. That page will mostly be dedicated to an overview of desirable difficulties in general, and it will link to the Testing Effect (as well as other effects) as examples of specific types of desirable difficulties. Psy250 jes85 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieval practice name change
Most the research refers to the testing effect as a result of retrieval practice, therefore the majority of conversation around the testing effect is actually about retrieval practice not the testing effect. I think the name of the page should be changed and the testing effect be mentioned as an alternative name as in the literature testing effect is a result of retrieval practice. DannyHatcher (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is listed as a cognitive bias, but how is it a bias?
This is my first time ever posting anything in wikipedia so apologies if I get anything wrong here.

I found this article listed in the wiki list of cognitive biases. But I am failing to see how this has anything at all to do with being a bias. Perhaps it doesn't belong in that list? 2601:647:6300:1B90:6874:6FB8:8C5F:E83B (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Serenity D-B (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Biology chemistry and physics
Yes 119.155.218.158 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)