Johnson and Mayer (2009) demonstrated a testing effect with multimedia learning: after a narrated animation, taking a practice transfer test improved delayed transfer performance relative to restudying, with a crossover pattern supporting transfer-appropriate processing. Their discussion posed open questions about whether the transfer-related testing effect generalizes, what mechanisms produce it, and why testing benefits grow with retention delay. Later meta-analytic literature supplies aggregate-level evidence on the 'whether': practice testing yields transferable learning (d = 0.40) and robust classroom benefits (g = 0.499), with feedback and repetitions as moderators. What remains open is the explanatory core: which cognitive processes produce test-enhanced transfer (transfer-appropriate processing versus elaborative or effortful retrieval versus dual-memory/bifurcation accounts), why testing benefits increase with retention delay, how engagement time versus retrieval events contributes, and a principled delineation of boundary conditions (material complexity, untested content, populations).

Background

The testing effect (also called retrieval practice) is the finding that retrieving information from memory during practice — for example, by taking a practice test — improves long-term retention of that information more than restudying it does. Multimedia learning denotes learning from combinations of words and pictures, such as a narrated animation. Transfer of learning means applying studied material to new questions or contexts rather than merely repeating it; a transfer test asks learners to use what they studied in a novel way (e.g., application and inference questions), and far transfer denotes application to contexts substantially different from the learning situation.

Johnson and Mayer (2009) examined retrieval practice with multimedia material: 282 participants watched a narrated animation about lightning formation and then either watched it again (restudy), took a practice retention test (recall of studied content), or took a practice transfer test (application questions). On delayed final tests, both tested groups outperformed the restudy group, and a crossover interaction appeared — the practice-retention group did best on delayed retention while the practice-transfer group did best on delayed transfer — a pattern consistent with transfer-appropriate processing (TAP), the account holding that performance benefits when practice processes match the processes required by the final test. Their discussion flagged open questions: whether the transfer-related testing effect generalizes across broader transfer materials, how engagement time versus retrieval events contributes, whether feedback on practice tests enhances transfer, whether TAP rather than competing accounts explains the effect, how practice testing works in authentic classrooms, and why testing benefits are typically stronger at longer retention intervals.

Three literature strands bear on these questions. First, early demonstrations confirmed testing benefits for meaningful learning: Butler (2010) found repeated testing produced superior transfer relative to repeated studying, and Karpicke and Blunt (2011) found retrieval practice outperformed elaborative studying with concept mapping (drawing node-link diagrams of concepts) on inference questions. Second, meta-analytic syntheses established the empirical landscape: Rowland (2014) found support for effortful processing but limited support for semantic-elaboration accounts; Pan and Rickard (2018) synthesized 192 transfer effect sizes (122 experiments, N = 10,382), finding an overall transfer advantage of testing over restudy control (d = 0.40) that is largest for application and inference questions and strongly moderated by response congruency, elaborated retrieval practice, and initial test performance — with publication-bias-corrected intercepts often near zero when those moderators are absent; Yang et al. (2021) synthesized 222 classroom studies (48,478 students, g = 0.499), finding moderation by corrective feedback, test format consistency, and number of test repetitions; Agarwal et al. (2021) reviewed 50 classroom experiments and found consistent benefits across education levels and content areas, though only 6% of experiments came from non-WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) countries. Third, the mechanistic debate remains unsettled: van Gog and Sweller (2015) argued the testing effect decreases or disappears as material complexity (element interactivity, their term for the number of interacting information elements) increases, a claim contested by Karpicke and Aue (2015); Endres and Renkl (2015) found no TAP support in expository-text learning and observed the testing effect disappear when controlling for mental effort; Chan et al. (2024) showed the magnitude of the testing effect is independent of retrieval practice performance, challenging performance-dependent accounts; and Kriechbaum and Bäuml (2025) found elaborative concept mapping and retrieval practice both promote new learning. For the delay question, two formal models — the bifurcation model of Kornell, Bjork, and Garcia (2011), in which successfully tested items form stronger memory traces that forget more slowly, and the dual-memory theory of Rickard and Pan (2018), in which study and test events create separate memories with different forgetting rates — predict that the advantage of testing over restudy grows with retention interval, but no consensus account exists.

Problem Statement

The source paper asked, after demonstrating a transfer-related testing effect with multimedia material, whether practice testing enhances application-level learning broadly and why. Later meta-analytic literature supplies aggregate-level evidence on the 'whether': practice testing does yield transferable learning (overall d = 0.40 versus restudy control; strongest for application and inference questions) and robust classroom benefits (g = 0.499), with corrective feedback and repeated testing as positive moderators. The open core is to explain and delimit test-enhanced transfer: (1) identify the cognitive processes that produce the transfer benefit of practice testing — that is, adjudicate among transfer-appropriate processing, elaborative/effortful retrieval accounts, dual-memory and bifurcation models, and additional-exposure/motivation accounts — and determine whether the benefit generalizes across broader transfer materials; (2) explain why the benefit of testing over restudying grows with longer retention intervals; (3) decompose the contributions of engagement time versus the number and type of retrieval events to transfer learning, and determine whether and when corrective feedback on practice-transfer tests increases transfer (not just retention); and (4) delineate the boundary conditions of test-enhanced transfer — for which material complexities, for tested versus untested content, and for which populations it does and does not occur. These four aims are jointly posed. The three dimensions named in aim (4) — material complexity, tested versus untested content, and populations — are facets of the single boundary-condition aim rather than three separate requirements.

References

  1. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183
  2. Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118-1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019902
  3. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
  4. Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002
  5. Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
  6. Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Carpenter, S. K. (2015). Does the benefit of testing depend on lag, and if so, why? Evaluating the elaborative retrieval hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 619-633. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0477-z
  7. Endres, T., & Renkl, A. (2015). Mechanisms behind the testing effect: An empirical investigation of retrieval practice in meaningful learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01054
  8. van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: The testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x
  9. Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3
  10. Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710-756. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000151
  11. Rickard, T. C., & Pan, S. C. (2018). A dual memory theory of the testing effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 847-869. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1298-4
  12. Yang, C., Luo, L., Vadillo, M. A., Yu, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2021). Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(4), 399-435. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309
  13. Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1409-1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9
  14. Barenberg, J., Berse, T., Reimann, L., & Dutke, S. (2021). Testing and transfer: Retrieval practice effects across test formats in English vocabulary learning in school. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 700-710. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3796
  15. van den Broek, G. S. E., van Gog, T., Jansen, E., Pleijsant, M., & Kester, L. (2021). Multimedia effects during retrieval practice: Images that reveal the answer reduce vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(8), 1587-1608. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000499
  16. Glaser, J., & Richter, T. (2025). The testing effect in the lecture hall: Does it transfer to content studied but not practiced? Teaching of Psychology, 52(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283231218943
  17. Wang, L., & Yang, J. (2024). The influence of repeated study and repeated testing on the testing effect and the transfer effect over time. Memory & Cognition, 52(3), 476-490. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01477-5
  18. Hughes, G. I., & Thomas, A. K. (2023). Retrieval practice and verbal-visuospatial transfer: From memorization to inductive learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 129, 104402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104402
  19. Chan, J. C. K., Davis, S. D., Yurtsever, A., & Myers, S. J. (2024). The magnitude of the testing effect is independent of retrieval practice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(7), 1816-1837. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001593
  20. Opitz, B., & Kubik, V. (2024). Far transfer of retrieval-practice benefits: Rule-based learning as the underlying mechanism. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00598-y
  21. Castro Hernandez, S., & Sebrechts, M. M. (2025). Retrieval-based concept mapping as an effective learning strategy for the transfer of knowledge. Instructional Science, 53(5), 1005-1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09720-z
  22. Kriechbaum, V. M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2025). Retrieval practice versus elaborative studying with concept mapping—Both promote new learning with related prose materials. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000228
  23. Gonçalves, A. de O., Muniz, B. F. B., & Jaeger, A. (2025). Retrieval practice versus elaborative encoding: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 37(4), 100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10076-6
  24. Corral, D., & Carpenter, S. K. (2025). Effects of retrieval practice on retention and application of complex educational concepts. Learning and Instruction, 100, 102219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102219
  25. Eitel, A., Martin Benito, S., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do it twice! Test-taking fosters repeated but not initial study of multimedia instruction. Learning and Instruction, 52, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.003