Abstract
Recent studies suggest that testing on prior material enhances subsequent learning of new material. Although such forward testing effect has received extensive empirical support, it is not yet clear how testing facilitates subsequent learning. One possible explanation suggests that interim testing informs learners about the format of an upcoming test and consequently allows them to adopt study strategies in accordance with the anticipated test format. Three experiments investigated whether the beneficial effects of testing are due to learners’ expectation with the test format or due to testing experience itself in inductive learning by varying when and how learners were informed about the format of an upcoming test. The results showed that informing learners about the test format via an interim test, but not a pretest, enhanced subsequent learning (experiment 1), and it was effective only when combined with actual test-taking experience (experiment 2). Testing appeared to enhance subsequent learning of new material when learners had an opportunity to evaluate their mastery over previously studied information. Experiment 3 further showed that these beneficial effects of testing were yielded even in the absence of feedback. Taken together, the findings suggest that mere exposure to the test format, not combined with actual testing, is not sufficient to enhance subsequent learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal, P. K., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Expectancy of an open-book test decreases performance on a delayed closed-book test. Memory, 19(8), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.613840.
Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger III, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391.
Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 940–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029199.
Aslan, A., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2016). Testing enhances subsequent learning in older but not in younger elementary school children. Developmental Science, 19(6), 992–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12340.
Bäuml, K. H. T., & Kliegl, O. (2013). The critical role of retrieval processes in release from proactive interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.006.
Bufe, J., & Aslan, A. (2018). Desirable difficulties in spatial learning: testing enhances subsequent learning of spatial information. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1701. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01701.
Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024140.
Chan, J. C. K., Manley, K. D., Davis, S. D., & Szpunar, K. K. (2018a). Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval and a lag: a strategy change perspective. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.007.
Chan, J. C. K., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018b). Retrieval potentiates new learning: a theoretical and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(11), 1111–1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000166.
Cho, K. W., Neely, J. H., Crocco, S., & Vitrano, D. (2017). Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1211–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1175485.
Davis, S. D., & Chan, J. C. K. (2015). Studying on borrowed time: how does testing impair new learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1741–1754.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.
Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026215.
Geller, J., Carpenter, S. K., Lamm, M. H., Rahman, S., Armstrong, P. I., & Coffman, C. R. (2017). Prequestions do not enhance the benefits of retrieval in a STEM classroom. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0078-z.
Gordon, L. T., & Thomas, A. K. (2017). The forward effects of testing on eyewitness memory: the tension between suggestibility and learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.004.
Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0.
Halamish, V., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 801–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023219.
Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028468.
Jacoby, L. L., Wahlheim, C. N., & Coane, J. H. (2010). Test-enhanced learning of natural concepts: effects on recognition memory, classification, and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1441–1451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020636.
Jing, H. G., Szpunar, K. K., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Interpolated testing influences focused attention and improves integration of information during a video-recorded lecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000087.
Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801.
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717.
Kornell, N. (2014). Attempting to answer a meaningful question enhances subsequent learning even when feedback is delayed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033699.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02127.x.
Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016). How retrieval attempts affect learning: a review and synthesis. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 65. The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 183–215). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempt enhances subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015729.
Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 498–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017807.
Latimier, A., Riegert, A., Peyre, H., Thierry, S., Casati, R., & Ramus, F. (2019). Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing? NPJ Science of Learning, 4(15), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0053-1.
Lee, H. S., & Ahn, D. (2018). Testing prepares students to learn better: the forward effect of testing in category learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000211.
Lee, H. S., & Ha, H. (2019). Metacognitive judgments of prior material facilitate the learning of new material: the forward effect of metacognitive judgments in inductive learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1189–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000339.
Little, J. L., Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., & Angello, G. (2012). Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges: fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 21, 1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443370.
McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000004.
McGillivary, S., & Castel, A. D. (2010). Memory for age-face associations: the role of generation and schematic support. Psychology and Aging, 25, 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021044.
Middlebrooks, C. D., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2017). Test expectancy and memory for important information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(6), 972–985. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000360.
Nunes, L. D., & Weinstein, Y. (2012). Testing improves true recall and protects against the build-up of proactive interference without increasing false recall. Memory, 20(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.648198.
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3.
Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2014). Retrieval practice enhances new learning: the forward effect of testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 286. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00286.
Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2019). Testing enhances subsequent learning in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 34(2), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000307.
Pastötter, B., & Frings, C. (2019). The forward testing effect is reliable and independent of learners’ working memory capacity. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82.
Pastötter, B., Schicker, S., Niedernhuber, J., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2011). Retrieval during learning facilitates subsequent memory encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021801.
Pastötter, B., Weber, J., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2013). Using testing to improve learning after severe traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 27(2), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031797.
Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). The benefit of generating errors during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033194.
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191465.
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why is test-restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026166.
Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016496.
Roediger III, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.
Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.
Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.
Rowland, C. A., Littrell-Baez, M. K., Sensenig, A. E., & DeLosh, E. L. (2014). Testing effects in mixed- versus pure-list designs. Memory & Cognition, 42(6), 912–921. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0404-3.
Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013082.
Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6313–6317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221764110.
Thiede, K. W. (1996). The relative importance of anticipated test format and anticipated test difficulty on performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49, 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755673.
Vaughn, K., & Rawson, K. (2012). When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 899–905. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0276-0.
Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Szpunar, K. K. (2011). Testing protects against proactive interference in face-name learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 518–523. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0085-x.
Weinstein, Y., Gilmore, A. W., Szpunar, K. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2014). The role of test expectancy in the build-up of proactive interference in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0085-x.
Wissman, K. T., & Rawson, K. A. (2018). Test-potentiated learning: three independent replications, a disconfirmed hypothesis, and an unexpected boundary condition. Memory, 26(4), 406–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1350717.
Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2011). The interim test effect: testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1140–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000177.
Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(4), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000139.
Yang, C., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). The forward testing effect: interim testing enhances inductive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000449.
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). The forward testing effect on self-regulated study time allocation and metamemory monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000122.
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: a review of the forward testing effect. NPJ Science of Learning, 3, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y.
Yang, C., Chew, S. J., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2019). The forward effects of testing transfer to different domains of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 809–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000320.
Funding
This research was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5A8020957), and in part by the Yonsei University Future-leading Research Initiative of 2017 (2017-22-0091).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, H., Lee, H. Knowing Is Not Half the Battle: the Role of Actual Test Experience in the Forward Testing Effect. Educ Psychol Rev 32, 765–789 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09518-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09518-0