Cognitive Load Theory, Resource Depletion and the Delayed Testing Effect
The testing effect occurs when students, given information to learn and then practice during a test, perform better on a subsequent content post-test than students who restudy the information as a substitute for the practice test. The effect is often weaker or reversed if immediate rather than delayed post-tests are used. The weakening may be due to differential working memory resource depletion on immediate post-tests with resource recovery due to rest following a delayed post-test. In three experiments, we compared an immediate post-test with a 1-week delayed post-test. Experiment 1 required the students to construct a puzzle poem and found working memory resource depletion occurred immediately after learning compared to a delay. Experiment 2 using text-based material tapping lower element interactivity information and experiment 3, again using a puzzle poem, compared study-only with the study and test groups. A disordinal interaction was obtained in both experiments with the study-only groups superior to the study–test groups on immediate content post-tests and reverse results on delayed tests. Working memory capacity tests indicated a non-significant increase in capacity after a delay compared to immediately after learning with medium size effects, but in experiment 2, there were no working memory differences between the study-only and the study and test groups. Experiment 3 increased element interactivity and found an increased memory capacity for the study-only group compared to the study and test group with the immediate test contributing more of the difference than the delayed test. It was concluded that increased working memory depletion immediately following learning with a test contributes to the failure to obtain a testing effect using immediate tests.
KeywordsCognitive load theory Testing effect Resource depletion Element interactivity
- Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J. T., & Vul, E. (2008). The effects of tests on learning and forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 36, 438–448. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.438.
- Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.Google Scholar
- Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.Google Scholar
- Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6(40).Google Scholar
- Geary, D. C. (2012). Application of evolutionary psychology to academic learning. Applied Evolutionary Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.003.0006.
- Geary, D. C., & Berch, D. B. (2016). Chapter 9: Evolution and children's cognitive and academic development. Evolutionary Psychology, 217–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_9.
- Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.Google Scholar
- Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: UNSW Press doi not available.Google Scholar
- Kühn, A. (1914). Über Einprägung durch Lesen und durch Rezitieren [On imprinting through reading and reciting]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 68, 396–481 doi not available.Google Scholar
- Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 55, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-387691-1.00001-6. Google Scholar
- Roediger, H. L., & Nestojko, J. F. (2015). The relative benefits of studying and testing on long-term retention. In J. G. W. Raaijmakers, A. H. Criss, R. L. Goldstone, R. M. Nosofsky, & M. Styvers (Eds.), Cognitive modeling in perception and memory: a festschrift for Richard M. Shiffrin (pp. 99–111). New York: Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/e633262013-206.Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Oxford: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8.Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 295–325). Washington: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-011.Google Scholar
- Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Dirkx, K., Hoogerheide, V., Boerboom, J., & Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. (2015). Testing after worked example study does not enhance delayed problem-solving performance compared to restudy. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9297-3.Google Scholar