Testing has been found to be a powerful learning tool, but educators might be reluctant to make full use of its benefits for fear that any errors made would be harmful to learning. We asked whether testing could be beneficial to memory even during novel learning, when nearly all responses were errors, and where errors were unlikely to be related to either cues or targets. In 4 experiments, participants learned definitions for unfamiliar English words, or translations for foreign vocabulary, by generating a response and being given corrective feedback, by reading the word and its definition or translation, or by selecting from a choice of definitions or translations followed by feedback. In a final test of all words, generating errors followed by feedback led to significantly better memory for the correct definition or translation than either reading or making incorrect choices, suggesting that the benefits of generation are not restricted to correctly generated items. Even when information to be learned is novel, errorful generation may play a powerful role in potentiating encoding of corrective feedback. Experiments 2A, 2B, and 3 revealed, via metacognitive judgments of learning, that participants are strikingly unaware of this benefit, judging errorful generation to be a less effective encoding method than reading or incorrect choosing, when in fact it was better. Predictions reflected participants' subjective experience during learning. If subjective difficulty leads to more effort at encoding, this could at least partly explain the errorful generation advantage.

In recent years evidence has accumulated showing that interim testing of studied information facilitates learning and retrieval of new information—the forward testing effect. In the current article, we review the empirical evidence and putative mechanisms underlying this effect. The possible negative effects of administering interim tests and how these negative effects can be mitigated are discussed. We also propose some important directions for future research to explore. Finally, we summarize the practical implications for optimizing learning and teaching in educational settings.

The forward testing effect describes the finding that testing of previously studied information potentiates learning and retention of new information. Here we asked whether interim testing boosts self-regulated study time allocation when learning new information and explored its effect on metamemory monitoring. Participants had unlimited time to study five lists of Euskara-English word pairs (Experiment 1) or four lists of face-name pairs (Experiment 2). In a No Interim Test group which was only tested on the final list, study time decreased across successive lists. In contrast, in an Interim Test group, which completed a recall test after each list, no such decrease was observed.Experiments 3 and 4 were designed to investigate the forward testing effect on metamemory monitoring and found that this effect is associated with metacognitive insight. Overall, the current study reveals that interim tests prevent the reduction of study time across lists and that people's metamemory monitoring is sensitive to the forward benefit of interim testing. Moreover across all four experiments, the Interim Test group was less affected by proactive interference in the final list interim test than the No Interim Test group. The results suggest that variations in both encoding and retrieval processes contribute to the forward benefit of interim testing.Keywords: forward testing effect; self-regulated learning; encoding; retrieval; metamemory monitoring Forward testing effect 3With the increasing popularity and availability of free online courses and learning aids, selfregulated learning is taking place more and more outside of the formal classroom (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013). To use these opportunities effectively, learners must understand how to regulate their behaviour to optimize learning, comprehension, and knowledge transfer. However, recent studies reveal that we are far from being sophisticated learners (for a review, see Bjork et al., 2013).Therefore, self-regulated learning has become a significant focus of theoretical and empirical research for both psychologists and educators.A few studies have been conducted employing interim tests to optimize self-regulated learning of previously studied or tested information (Karpicke, 2009;Soderstrom & Bjork, 2014). But no research has yet been undertaken employing interim tests to optimize self-regulated learning of new information. One aim of the current study is to fill this gap. Specifically, we explored how interim tests influence subsequent self-regulated study time allocation when learning new information. Backward testing effectIn educational settings, testing is usually regarded as an evaluative instrument to assess learning and comprehension. A large body of research has supplied convincing evidence that testing is also an effective instrument to facilitate long term retention (for a review, see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). The common finding that retrieval of previously studied information enhances its retention by comparison with restudying that informat...

Guessing translations of foreign words (hodei?), before viewing corrective feedback (hodei-cloud), leads to better subsequent memory for correct translations than studying intact pairs (hodei-cloud), even when guesses are always incorrect (Potts & Shanks, 2014), but the mechanism underlying this effect is unknown. Possible explanations fall into two broad classes. One puts the locus of the effect at retrieval: Items studied through a generation process have more potential retrieval cues associated with them, or a more distinctive context, and are therefore more accessible at final test. The other puts the locus at encoding and involves enhanced encoding of the correct answer following the generation of an error compared with passive studying (Potts & Shanks, 2014). In 6 experiments we found support for the proposal that generating errors benefits memory through stimulating curiosity to learn correct answers following an incorrect guess, leading to enhanced processing of targets following generation. In Experiment 1, generating possible translations after seeing correct answers did not produce better memory than studying without generating, suggesting that an element of surprise or anticipation is necessary for generating to benefit memory. Experiments 2a–2c found enhanced recognition memory for targets following generating, suggesting increased focus on targets following a guess. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants rated their curiosity to learn correct answers higher when ratings were given after generating than before, suggesting that the act of generation increases curiosity to learn the answers. These findings imply that enhanced processing of feedback is a key consequence of errorful generation.

Generating errors followed by corrective feedback enhances retention more effectively than does reading—the benefit of errorful generation—but people tend to be unaware of this benefit. The current research explored this metacognitive unawareness, its effect on self-regulated learning, and how to alleviate or reverse it. People’s beliefs about the relative learning efficacy of generating errors followed by corrective feedback compared to reading, and the effects of generation fluency, are also explored. In Experiments 1 and 2, lower judgments of learning (JOLs) were consistently given to incorrectly generated word pairs than to studied (read) pairs and led participants to distribute more study resources to incorrectly generated pairs, even though superior recall of these pairs was exhibited in the final test. In Experiment 3, a survey revealed that people believe that generating errors followed by corrective feedback is inferior to reading. Experiment 4 was designed to alter participants’ metacognition by informing them of the errorful generation benefit prior to study. Although metacognitive misalignment was partly countered, participants still tended to be unaware of this benefit when making item-by-item JOLs. In Experiment 5, in a delayed JOL condition, higher JOLs were given to incorrectly generated pairs and read pairs were more likely to be selected for restudy. The current research reveals that people tend to underestimate the learning efficiency of generating errors followed by corrective feedback relative to reading when making immediate item-by-item JOLs. Informing people of the errorful generation benefit prior to study and asking them to make delayed JOLs are effective ways to alleviate this metacognitive miscalibration.