Pretesting before instruction enhances learning of subsequently presented material even when pretest answers are wrong, with multiple-choice pretesting more effective than cued-recall pretesting¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r2–r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Answering questions about material before studying enhances learning of that material even if no pretest questions are answered correctly. → Dillon H. Murphy 2023 q3 i? Multiple-choice pretesting enhanced learning of related information more than cued-recall pretesting, including after a delay. → Dillon H. Murphy 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Dillon H. Murphy 2023¶

Dillon H. Murphy, Jeri L. Little, Elizabeth L. Bjork. (2023). The Value of Using Tests in Education as Tools for Learning—Not Just for Assessment. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09808-3

q3 · i? · theoretical · r2

The commentary reviews pretesting studies (e.g., Arnold & McDermott, 2013; Richland et al., 2009), reporting that when students answer questions about a passage or lesson they are about to receive, "their learning of the then-presented material is enhanced even if they are not able to answer any of those questions correctly." No effect size is printed.

"their learning of the then-presented material is enhanced even if they are not able to answer any of those questions correctly"

Dillon H. Murphy 2023 (2)¶

Dillon H. Murphy, Jeri L. Little, Elizabeth L. Bjork. (2023). The Value of Using Tests in Education as Tools for Learning—Not Just for Assessment. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09808-3

q3 · i? · theoretical · r3

The commentary describes Little and Bjork (2016), who used multiple-choice and cued-recall pretests before studying and examined later learning of related information; "multiple-choice pretesting was more effective than cued-recall pretesting, even after a delay." No effect size is printed.

"Overall, results revealed that multiple-choice pretesting was more effective than cued-recall pretesting, even after a delay"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Pretesting enhances learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Multiple-choice testing improves later cued recall of prose facts, a benefit that persists though reduced after a one-week delay — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Pretesting benefits for paired associates depend on semantic association between pair members, with cued-recall benefits absent for unrelated pairs — related
• A review reports that pretesting helps paired-associate learning only when correct-answer feedback is immediate, but helps trivia-fact learning even when feedback is delayed up to 24 hours — related
• Learners fail to recognize the benefits of pre-instruction testing, ranking it as least effective despite benefiting from it — related
• Providing feedback after initial multiple-choice tests cut lure intrusions on final short-answer tests roughly in half, with immediate and delayed feedback equally effective — related
• Taking initial multiple-choice tests without feedback can lead students to later produce the incorrect lure answers they selected, even when an overall retrieval practice benefit occurs — related
• Multiple-choice testing increases the later production of multiple-choice lures as answers on cued recall tests, even under warning against guessing — related