Yes, practice even as simple retest improves scores in matrices-like tests:
Raven’s APM scores increase significantly on repeated testing without any targeted training (e.g., Bors & Vigneau, 2003; Bors & Forrin, 1995; Denney & Heidrich, 1990).
Bors DA, Vigneau F. The effect of practice on Raven’s advanced progressive matrices. Learning and Individual Differences. 2003;13(4):291–312.
Bors DA, Forrin B. Age, speed of information processing, recall, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence. 1995;20(3):229–248.
Denney NW, Heidrich SM, Training effects on Raven's progressive matrices in young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Psychol Aging. 1990 Mar; 5(1):144-5.
I'm not surprised by this finding because the number of conceptually different problems in such matrices tests is limited. They questions are all basically variations on a few base patterns. The latter part is claim from memory, but I've read it somewhere besides my own observation; let me find where. (Also, I should try to quantify the improvement retest gives.)
I couldn't find the original place where I've read about the structure of Raven's, but I found newer research that found improvement in restest in particular problem types:
The (small) sample here was of 13-year olds... so this should be pretty relevant to your age. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much the finding extends (quantitatively) to adults.
Some researchers went as far as explaining the Flynn effect by this kind of better rule-based inference underlying retest improvement in Raven's:
We present a new model of the Flynn effect. It is proposed that Flynn effect gains are partly a function of the
degree to which a test is dependent on rules or heuristics. This means that testees can become better at solving
‘rule-dependent’ problems over time in response to changing environments, which lead to the improvement
of lower-order cognitive processes (such as implicit learning and aspects of working memory). These in
turn lead to apparent IQ gains that are partially independent of general intelligence. We argue that the Flynn effect
is directly analogous to IQ gains via retesting, noting that Raven's Progressive Matrices is particularly sensitive
to both the effects of retesting and the Flynn effect.
And a bit more from the paper itself:
The biggest Flynn effect gains have been recorded on tests of fluid intelligence,
in particular the Raven's Progressive Matrices (five-seven
points per decade; Flynn, 1987, 2007, 2009). The smallest gains typically
occur on measures of crystallized knowledge (Jensen, 1998a). It must
be noted that not all measures of IQ show long-term gains. For example,
purely psychophysical elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs), such as inspection
and reaction times, show no Flynn effect (Nettlebeck &
Wilson, 2004; Silverman, 2010). [...]
Studies by Verguts et al. (1999) and Verguts and De Boeck (2002)
[...] have found
that in experiments, participants do repeatedly reapply a small number
of rules when attempting to solve RPM-type items. The rule induction
process seems to be characterized by the sequential sampling of rules,
each of which have a certain probably of being resampled (Verguts
et al., 1999). Furthermore, the speed with which individuals are able
to sample and induce rules is strongly related to prior task exposure
(Verguts & De Boeck, 2002).
These studies indicate that narrower abilities matter in solving
RPM items, and that furthermore, reliance upon these narrow abilities
increases with increasing test experience. This is consistent
with the phenomenology of both retesting and Flynn effects [...]
- Verguts, T., De Boeck, P, & Maris, E. (1999). Generation speed in Raven's Progressive Matrices
Test. Intelligence, 27, 329–345.
- Verguts, T., & De Boeck, P. (2002). The induction of solution rules in Raven's Progressive
Matrices Test. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 521–547.
I'm guessing I've read one the Verguts' papers, or at least something else citing their results (in the past).