This article was originally published in Psychology Today on Nate Kornell’s blog, Everybody is Stupid Except You 

Taking a test—and specifically, the memory retrieval process that testing entails—enhances learning. This blog post is about a new study that sheds light on why retrieval is beneficial.


When you take a test, one of three things happens. Your answer is right, your answer is wrong, or you don’t answer. Many studies have shown that tests are better than rereading when you mix all of these together. But recent studies have tried to separate them.

Intuitively it makes sense that tests would be good when you get the answer right—and it is. A bunch of recent studies have asked a less intuitively obvious question: what happens when you get it wrong or don’t answer on the test?

In a typical study, one condition is shown a question and answer like “what sport is the most common cause of eye injuries in the United States? — Baseball.” The other condition is shown the same question, without the answer. After trying to answer and getting it wrong or leaving it blank (the results are about the same either way) they are shown the correct answer.

These studies have consistently shown that being tested enhances learning even when you get the answer wrong, or leave it blank, on the test.

The new studies

Why does retrieval enhance learning? That’s the question I ask in a new paper with collaborators Katherine Rawson and Patricia Jacobs Klein. We start with the premise that retrieval attempts enhance learning even if they’re unsuccessful. Then we take it one step further. We ask: Does retrieval success matter at all? In other words, retrieval always involves a retrieval attempt. The question is, if you make an attempt, does it matter whether you arrive at the answer…

  • …by thinking of it yourself
  • …by being told the answer

This question is hard to answer. You can’t just compare these two types of items because prior knowledge is different—people obviously know the ones they can answer better than the ones they can’t. What’s required is random assignment: You need to start with two equivalent groups of items and randomly assign some to be retrieved and some not. But how do you randomly assign retrieval success? Here’s what our participants did (this is experiment 6 from our paper; experiment 3a and 3b were similar):

  • Study word pairs
  • Take a test for 6 seconds
  • If you don’t think of the right answer on that test, either…
  • …see the answer (no retrieval condition)
  • …see the answer with missing letters and retrieve the answer (retrieval condition)
  • Later, take a final test

If retrieval success matters, then participants should do better in the retrieval condition. But notice that because of the initial test (for 6 seconds), everyone makes a retrieval attempt. If retrieval attempts are the important thing, and it doesn’t matter how you arrive at the answer, then these conditions should produce equal performance on the final test.

What happened? There was no difference between the conditions. As long as participants made a retrieval attempt, it didn’t matter how they arrived at the answer.

(Note: other experiments in the paper confirm that the missing letters condition does enhance learning in standard paradigms where it isn’t preceded by a retrieval attempt, and that these results can’t be explained by better guessing based on semantic memory. We demonstrated these findings in 3 experiments and then replicated them in another three experiments.)


We started by asking: Why does retrieval enhance learning? These results suggest that retrieval attempts are the key. One way to look at it is: retrieval is beneficial because it gets you to try to retrieve, but it’s not beneficial because of retrieval itself.

These findings don’t have big practical implications. Don’t conclude that items you can retrieve benefit from tests as much as items you can’t, because those items aren’t equivalent—ours were equivalent because we intentionally made it so to investigate a theoretical question.

But the theoretical implication seems important. It is not the case that tests have direct benefits (retrieval success) and indirect benefits (unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning). These mechanisms are one and the same. If you make a retrieval attempt, learning benefits, regardless of how you arrive at the answer.

Copyright Nate Kornell

About the Author

Nate Kornell is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Psychology at Williams College. He completed a Ph.D. at Columbia University and a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Los Angeles. His research focuses on how learners can increase the efficiency of their learning and how typical learners understand and manage their own learning. To keep up with his blog and other news in Psychology, follow Nate on Twitter.

Related Posts

We’ve all heard the old adage, “practice makes perfect.” It’s the idea that if we just practice...

One Question You Need to Ask Yourself About Your Syllabus This article was originally published in...

Tweak the way you do math homework. You’ll learn more and be less overconfident. This article was...

Leave a Reply

Our Story

In 2015, Cameron Broumand, an entrepreneur and father of three living in Los Angeles, stumbled upon a media article on the science of learning. After reading the piece, he realized that the valuable research findings in cognitive psychology and the learning sciences were almost entirely unknown to the public and, more surprisingly, to teachers. How could this be?! Broumand decided to find out, so he called Dr. Robert Bjork, a distinguished research professor at UCLA and one of the world’s leading experts in human learning and memory. After an insightful conversation with Dr. Bjork about the disconnect between research and practice, Broumand recognized an opportunity to improve our educational system. Shortly thereafter, he—along with Clement Mok, an award-winning designer and digital pioneer—founded the company, Lasting Learning. The goal of the company? To provide information to the public about how the science of learning can help transform and improve the way people teach and learn. Broumand asked learning scientists, Dr. Nick Soderstrom and Saskia Giebl, M.Sc. (both of whom were in Bjork’s lab at the time), to join the team. They happily agreed and, with the help of Carri O’Neill, have been giving talks, workshops, and webinars around the country ever since. The UCLA-Lasting Learning team has had the privilege to talk with thousands of teachers, coaches, parents, students, and athletes about how they can leverage the science of learning to enhance their educational practices. We look forward to talking with many more!