Investigating Theories of the Testing Effect

When compared to restudy, a practice test results in greater final test recall, a phenomenon known as the testing effect, and has been replicated across hundreds of experiments (Rowland, 2014; Adesope et al., 2017); however, consistent theoretical explanations for the benefits of testing remain elusive. I investigated the underlying assumptions for two prominent theories of the testing effect, the episodic context theory (Karpicke et al., 2014) and the dual memory model (Rickard & Pan, 2018). Across four experiments (combined n = 426) I contrasted the predictions of the theories regarding the specificity of learning (Experiments 1 and 2), attempted to manipulate context updating as proposed by the episodic context theory in a restudy condition using instructions to retrieve the acquisition phase context during the practice phase (Experiment 3), and attempted to manipulate the number of memory traces the dual memory model proposes are created during the practice phase using pretesting (Experiment 4). Across these experiments I found no support for the episodic context theory assumption that context updating results in greater retrieval on a final test. In contrast, I found conflicting evidence for the dual memory model assumption that a second memory trace is created during a practice test. These experiments take an initial step toward behavioral tests of the core assumptions for two important models of the testing effect and reveal important directions for future research. Additionally, the results of Experiment 3 suggest a complex context change may be a potential boundary condition for the testing effect, which has important implications for education and learning.