Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later retention, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. We studied this effect with educationally relevant materials and investigated whether testing facilitates learning only because tests offer an opportunity to restudy material. In two experiments, students studied prose passages and took one or three immediate free-recall tests, without feedback, or restudied the material the same number of times as the students who received tests. Students then took a final retention test 5 min, 2 days, or 1 week later. When the final test was given after 5 min, repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing. However, on the delayed tests, prior testing produced substantially greater retention than studying, even though repeated studying increased students' confidence in their ability to remember the material. Testing is a powerful means of improving learning, not just assessing it.

Bartlett (1932) gave subjects a prose passage and showed how recall dropped when they were tested repeatedly. Ballard (1913), using poetry, and Erdelyi and Becker (1974), using pictures, reported improvements in performance (or hypermnesia) over repeated testing. We investigated two likely factors leading to the discrepant results: the type of material and the interval between tests. The primary cause of the differing outcomes is the interval between tests. In general, when the intervals between successive tests are short improvement occurs between tests. When these intervals are long, forgetting occurs. The type of material used plays little role: Hypermnesia in recall of prose (even “The War of the Ghosts”) occurred with short intervals between tests. We also report a striking confirmation of the power of tests to enhance memory: Repeated tests shortly after study greatly improved recall a week later.