A quiz is often thought of as a way of finding out what you already know. Memory researchers have asked a different question: does answering questions from memory also change what you remember afterwards? The finding they call the testing effect says it can. This guide summarises what five published research abstracts say about it, and where those abstracts stop. They describe studies of students and study materials, not pub quizzes or trivia apps, so the guide makes no claim about any particular quiz format.
The five sources at a glance
- Roediger and Karpicke (2006): two experiments with students and prose passages.
- Roediger and Butler (2011): a review of research on retrieval practice.
- Karpicke and Blunt (2011): retrieval practice compared with elaborative studying using concept mapping.
- Rowland (2014): a meta-analysis of testing versus restudy.
- Dunlosky and colleagues (2013): an evaluation of 10 learning techniques, including practice testing.
What is the testing effect?
Roediger and Karpicke wrote in 2006 that taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows but also enhances later retention, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. Their paper asked whether a test helps only because it gives a second look at the material.
What did the 2006 experiments find?
In two experiments, students studied prose passages. Some then took one or three immediate free-recall tests without feedback, while others restudied the material the same number of times. A final test came 5 minutes, 2 days or 1 week later.
- After 5 minutes: repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing.
- After 2 days or 1 week: prior testing produced substantially greater retention than studying.
- Confidence: repeated studying increased students’ confidence in their ability to remember the material, even though the delayed results favoured testing.
The authors concluded that testing is a powerful means of improving learning, not just assessing it.
Does it work only for isolated facts?
A 2011 review by Roediger and Butler in Trends in Cognitive Sciences reported that retrieval practice, meaning retrieving information on a test, often produced large gains in long-term retention relative to repeated studying. It also said retrieval practice promotes knowledge that can be flexibly retrieved and transferred to different contexts.
A separate 2011 paper in Science by Karpicke and Blunt compared retrieval practice with elaborative studying using concept mapping. They reported that retrieval practice produced greater gains in meaningful learning, including on test questions that assessed comprehension and required inferences, using texts that the authors describe as identical to those commonly found in science education.
Is feedback needed?
The 2011 review said retrieval practice is often effective even without feedback, meaning without being given the correct answer, but that feedback enhances the benefits of testing. The 2006 experiments described above gave no feedback, and still found the delayed advantage.
Does the type of question matter?
A 2014 meta-analysis by Rowland in Psychological Bulletin pooled studies comparing testing with restudying. Its abstract says the key results support the role of effortful processing as a contributor, with initial recall tests yielding larger testing benefits than recognition tests. It also says existing theories have not yet provided a cohesive account of testing phenomena. The abstract does not say how a given quiz round would fare.
Where does practice testing sit among study methods?
In 2013 Dunlosky and colleagues reviewed 10 learning techniques in Psychological Science in the Public Interest. They rated practice testing and distributed practice as high utility because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost performance across many criterion tasks and in educational contexts. They rated rereading and highlighting low, noting that most students report using them although they do not consistently boost performance, and suggested practice testing instead of rereading.
What these abstracts do not show
- The studies named above involve students, prose passages, science texts and educational settings. A group quiz night is a different situation, and the abstracts do not describe one.
- At the shortest delay in the 2006 experiments, 5 minutes, restudying did better than testing. The result depends on when the final test happens.
- This guide drew on published abstracts, not full papers. The abstracts report no effect sizes, so details such as exact methods and the size of any advantage sit outside it.
Common questions
Is rereading notes pointless, then?
Dunlosky and colleagues rated rereading as low utility, saying it does not consistently boost students’ performance. They did not say it never helps.
Does a quiz teach more than studying right away?
Not according to the 2006 five-minute result. Restudying did better at that delay, and the testing advantage appeared on later tests.
The bottom line
The abstracts reviewed here report that answering questions from memory can improve later retention compared with restudying, particularly on delayed tests, and that practice testing earned a high utility rating in a review of 10 study techniques. They also report a short-delay exception, a link between effortful recall and bigger benefits, and the fact that the research concerns students and learning materials. Whether a particular quiz night produces the same gains is not something these sources address.
Sources
- Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention (Roediger and Karpicke, Psychological Science, 2006; abstract via Europe PMC, PMID 16507066)
- The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention (Roediger and Butler, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2011; abstract via Europe PMC, PMID 20951630)
- Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping (Karpicke and Blunt, Science, 2011; abstract via Europe PMC, PMID 21252317)
- The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect (Rowland, Psychological Bulletin, 2014; abstract via Europe PMC, PMID 25150680)
- Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan and Willingham, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2013; abstract via Europe PMC, PMID 26173288)
Leave a Reply