Testing After Worked Example Study Does Not Enhance Delayed Problem-Solving Performance Compared to Restudy

Four experiments investigated whether the testing effect also applies to the acquisition of problem-solving skills from worked examples. Experiment 1 (n=120) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of isomorphic problem solving or example recall on final test performance, which consisted of isomorphic problem solving, compared to continued study of isomorphic examples. Experiment 2 (n=124) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of identical problem solving compared to restudying an identical example. Interestingly, participants who took both an immediate and a delayed final test outperformed those taking only a delayed test. This finding suggested that testing might become beneficial for retention but only after a certain level of schema acquisition has taken place through restudying several examples. However, experiment 2 had no control condition restudying examples instead of taking the immediate test. Experiment 3 (n=129) included such a restudy condition, and there was no evidence that testing after studying four examples was more effective for final delayed test performance than restudying, regardless of whether restudied/tested problems were isomorphic or identical. Experiment 4 (n=75) used a similar design as experiment 3 (i.e., testing/restudy after four examples), but with examples on a different topic and with a different participant population. Again, no evidence of a testing effect was found. Thus, across four experiments, with different types of initial tests, different problem-solving domains, and different participant populations, we found no evidence that testing enhanced delayed test performance compared to restudy. These findings suggest that the testing effect might not apply to acquiring problem-solving skills from worked examples

Differential ability and attainment in language and arithmetic of Dutch primary school pupils.

Background. In pre-school and primary education pupils differ in many abilities and competences (‘giftedness’). Yet mainstream educational practice seems rather homogeneous in providing age-based or grade-class subject matter approaches. Aims. To clarify whether pupils scoring initially at high ability level do develop and attain differently at school with respect to language and arithmetic compared with pupils displaying other initial ability levels. To investigate whether specific individual, family or educational variables co-vary with the attainment of these different types of pupils in school. Samples. Data from the large-scale PRIMA cohort study including a total of 8258 grade 2 and 4 pupils from 438 primary schools in The Netherlands. Methods. Secondary analyses were carried out to construct gain scores for both language and arithmetic proficiency and a number of behavioural, attitudinal, family and educational characteristics. The pupils were grouped into different ability categories (highly able; able; above average; average and below). Further analyses used Pearson correlations and analyses of variance both between and within ability categories. Cross-validation was done by introducing a cohort of younger pupils in pre-school and grouping both cohorts into decile groups based on initial ability in language and arithmetic. Results. Highly able pupils generally decreased in attainment in both language and arithmetic, whereas pupils in average and below average groups improved their language and arithmetic scores. Only with highly able pupils were some educational characteristics correlated with the pupils’ development in achievement, behaviour and attitudes. Conclusions. Pre-school and primary education should better match pupils’ differences in abilities and competences from their start in pre-school to improve their functioning, learning processes and outcomes. Recommendations for educational improvement strategies are presented in closing.