Are open‐book tests still as effective as closed‐book tests even after a delay of 2 weeks?

Abstract

AbstractThe present work was conducted to re‐examine the findings of Agarwal et al. (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861–876, 2008), which showed that both closed‐book tests (with feedback) and open‐book tests increased learning outcomes after 1 week compared to simple re‐study of the same materials. However, contrary to often found benefits of retrieval practice—which should be more pronounced in closed‐book tests—both test conditions proved to be similarly effective. As retrieval practice benefits increase with retention interval, this pattern may change with a longer delay. Hence, we conducted a laboratory study and applied three within‐participant learning conditions (re‐study, open‐book test, closed‐book test with feedback) with a 2 weeks instead of 1 week delay between studying and the final test. Notably, our results mirrored the findings of Agarwal et al. (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861–876, 2008) showing that open‐book and closed‐book tests outperform re‐study but are similarly effective—even using a slightly changed procedure, new materials, a different sample, and a longer delay.