Is Testing a More Effective Learning Strategy Than Note Taking?
The testing effect is both robust and generalizable. However, most of the underlying studies compare testing to a rather ineffective control condition: massed repeated reading. This article therefore compares testing with note taking, which has been shown to be more effective than repeated reading. Experiment 1 is based on a 3 x 3 between participants design with the factors learning condition (repeated reading vs. repeated testing vs. repeated note taking) and final test delay (5 min vs. 1 week vs. 2 weeks) It shows that in the immediate condition, learning performance is best after note taking. After 1 week, both the note taking and the testing groups outperform the rereading group, and after 2 weeks, testing is superior to both note taking and rereading. Since repeated notetaking may not be the most effective (and common) operationalization of note taking, Experiment 2 contrasts repeated testing with 2 other note taking conditions: note taking plus note reading and note taking plus testing (with only a 2 week final test delay) Both conditions that include a testing phase result in better long term learning than note taking plus note reading. In summary, our findings indicate that in the long run testing is a powerful learning tool both in isolation and in combination with note taking.
Journal of experimental psychology. Applied