The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 24 of the 58 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The benefit of generating errors during learning
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
200 Own result · 67 Own interpretation · 15 No full text of the sources · 14 Own method · 8 No basis given · 7 Supported · 5 Partly supported · 5 Sources not found · 4 Supported so far · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Mixed support · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Kornell et al. found that the test condition led to better final test performance than the read-only condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Unsuccessful retrieval
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kornell et al., 2009 source
The Results and Discussion (p. 6) report significantly higher final-test cued-recall accuracy in the test condition than in the read-only condition in Experiment 4. The same pattern is reported for other experiments on pp. 6–7. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“On the other hand, there is also evidence that generating responses can be beneficial even when many errors are produced, as long as corrective feedback is given (e.g., Kornell, Hays & Bjork, 2009).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kornell, Hays & Bjork, 2009 source
The General Discussion (p. 7) reports that unsuccessful retrieval attempts accompanied by feedback enhanced learning. In Results and Discussion (p. 6), 77% of responses were errors of commission, yet final recall was significantly higher after retrieval attempts with feedback than after studying the answers for the same amount of time. The Concluding Comment (p. 8) explicitly says feedback is critical. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, there is evidence that feedback may enhance the benefits of tests (Butler & Roediger, 2008;Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted & Rohrer, 2005).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Butler & Roediger, 2008 source
In “The Acquisition of Misinformation,” the paper reports that feedback enhanced the observed testing effect: both immediate and delayed feedback produced large gains in correct responses compared with no feedback. This directly supports the citing sentence’s hedged claim that feedback may enhance the benefits of tests. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted & Rohrer, 2005 source
The Results and Discussion section (page not provided) reports that correct-answer feedback after an incorrect test response improved final-test performance and increased one-week retention compared with no feedback. This supports the citing sentence’s qualified claim that feedback may enhance the benefits of tests. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Even in the undetermined condition, where participants nearly always produced an error, generating led to better final test performance than reading.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Unsuccessful retrieval
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kane & Anderson, 1978 source
The General Discussion reports that subjects in the Undetermined Sentence Completion group were almost always wrong when supplying the missing word, yet recalled more on the test one week later than the Reading Only control group. This supports the claimed advantage of generating over reading in that condition. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, it has been found that the harder the test, and the greater the effort required for retrieval, the greater the benefit to subsequent memory (e.g., Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006;Pyc & Rawson, 2009).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006 source
The General Discussion reports that items retrieved with fewer letter cues were retained better on a later test, a pattern replicated in Experiment 3. It interprets reduced cue support as requiring more elaborative retrieval processing and concludes that test benefits were greatest under those conditions. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pyc & Rawson, 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it is difficult to explain Kane and Anderson's (1978) findings by Grimaldi and Karpicke's account, since in their undetermined condition the targets were unrelated to the most obvious, incorrect, completions so it is highly unlikely that they would have been retrieved along with them.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kane and Anderson's (1978) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“There is also evidence that greater attention is given to feedback that does not match expectations (e.g., Butterfield & Metcalfe, 2001;Fazio & Marsh, 2009)”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Butterfield & Metcalfe, 2001 source
- Supportedcites Fazio & Marsh, 2009 source
The General Discussion states that unexpected feedback leads to greater effort to encode it and describes the present studies as showing a focus on that feedback. The experiments found better memory for feedback that did not match participants’ expectations, supporting the claim about greater attention. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Kornell et al. found no advantage of generating over reading when total trial time was equated.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kornell et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 2 held total trial time constant and found no significant difference in final recall for fictional items (Method and Results and Discussion, p. 4). But the claim presents that result as general: Experiments 4 and 6 also equated trial time and found significantly better recall after retrieval attempts than after reading (Results and Discussion, pp. 6–7). (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, it has also been found that ease of processing, or encoding fluency, influences JOLs (e.g.Castel, McCabe, & Roediger, 2007;Koriat, 2008;Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson & Kidder, 2003;Schwartz, Benjamin & Bjork, 1997).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Castel, McCabe, & Roediger, 2007 source
The General Discussion (page not supplied) says that fluency plays a critical role in judgments of learning (JOLs) and that fluent identical pairs receive inflated JOLs. Experiment 2 also identifies ease of processing as a proposed reason for their high JOLs. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Koriat, 2008 source
The Results and Discussion state that ease of learning affects JOLs and that processing fluency makes a unique contribution to them. The paper also identifies study time and trials to acquisition as indicators of encoding fluency, supporting the paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson & Kidder, 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In both Grimaldi and Karpicke's (2012) and Huelser and Metcalfe's (2012) studies, participants generated guesses which were highly related to the cues in both the related and unrelated conditions (e.g., sleep for the cue pillow).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experiment 1 procedure says participants guessed a target for both related and unrelated cue–target pairs. The Experiment 2 Materials section says the lure for each cue was its most frequently produced response, and Experiment 2 describes a lure as related to its cue. These passages support cue-related guesses in both pair types, but do not establish that participants’ guesses generally were highly related to the cues. (LLM, conf=0.81)
- Supportedcites Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012 source
The Latent semantic analysis section reports that participants generated errors related to the cue in both the related- and unrelated-materials conditions. It gives similar cue–error relatedness values for the two conditions in Experiment 1 (.28 and .25), and reports the same pattern in Experiment 2. The provided passages do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 75
- Probably not a substantial claim. 36
- Not yet classified. 5
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Our findings are inconsistent with these proposals.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Grimaldi and Karpicke (2012) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and discussion for Experiment 1 say the findings are consistent with a search-set account in which related candidates are activated during retrieval, and that the memory benefit occurred for related cue–target pairs but not unrelated pairs. The paper instead finds general error-correction and additional-cue theories difficult to reconcile with the results. It does not say the correct answer had to be already known during generation. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Partly supportedcites Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Learning phase performance section reports a memory benefit after incorrect guesses, with correctly guessed trials excluded; this supports the challenge to an account requiring the correct answer to be produced during generation. But the Abstract and Experiment 2 discussion say the benefit occurred only for semantically related cue–target pairs, not unrelated pairs. Those findings do not support saying the paper is inconsistent with a proposal requiring an existing cue–target relationship. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hays et al., 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The prevailing view is that a benefit of errorful generation only occurs when there is a pre-existing semantic association between cue and target.”
- Also stated in: § Unsuccessful retrieval · plain
“The prevailing view, then, is that errors can only be beneficial when there is a preexisting semantic relationship between cue and target.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The General discussion (page unavailable) reports that retrieval attempts enhanced learning for related cue–target words but not unrelated ones across three experiments. It does not establish this as the prevailing view in the literature; the Experiment 1 discussion describes other theories that predict benefits for both related and unrelated pairs. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that error generation improved retention for semantically related cue–target pairs but not for completely unrelated pairs. However, the introductory passage says the conditions under which errors help learning were not yet known, and the Abstract presents relatedness as the authors’ hypothesis rather than an established prevailing view. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Unsuccessful retrieval · plain
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Two subsequent studies using the same weak-associate paradigm (Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012;Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012) came to the conclusion that a benefit of generating errors could only be observed when there was such a pre-existing semantic association between cue and target and not when the cue was unrelated to the target.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Unsuccessful retrieval
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012 source
The Results and discussion section reports that attempting retrieval improved final recall only for related cue–target pairs, not unrelated pairs. The General discussion says this pattern occurred in all three experiments. The paper describes the initial retrieval attempts as producing frequent errors. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012 source
The Results discussion states that generating errors enhanced retention for semantically related materials but not for completely unrelated materials. The General discussion also reports that Grimaldi and Karpicke found benefits only for semantically related items. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“in Huelser and Metcalfe's (2012) study it was significantly more common for an error made at study to be repeated at test in the unrelated than the related condition, whether the design was between subjects (Experiment 1) or within subjects (Experiment 2).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Huelser and Metcalfe (2012) source
The Results report that in Experiment 1, initially incorrect responses appeared on the final test more often for unrelated than related materials (20% versus 5%, p < .001). The Experiment 2 error-persistence passage reports the same pattern (15% versus 7%, p < .01). The Abstract identifies Experiment 1 as between-participants and Experiment 2 as within-participants. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Therefore, Grimaldi and Karpicke's proposal that errorful generation is only beneficial for related items (because they are covertly retrieved at study and thus benefit from a classic testing effect) and not for unrelated items (because they are not retrieved at study), may not be the only possible explanation for their findings.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Grimaldi and Karpicke's (2012) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The General discussion reports that retrieval attempts enhanced learning of related targets but not unrelated targets, and explains this through activation of related candidates in a search set during the retrieval attempt. It does not propose that targets are covertly retrieved at study or that they benefit from a classic testing effect; that part of the attributed explanation is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Not yet classified.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Of course, we have not measured effort or attention directly but this proposal is consistent with other research suggesting that ease of processing leads to higher JOLs”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Castel et al., 2007 source
Experiment 2 links perceived ease of processing with higher judgments of learning (JOLs) for identical pairs, and the General Discussion says their fluency contributes to overestimated recall. The citing sentence’s statement that the authors did not measure effort or attention refers to their own study, not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites Koriat, 2008 source
The paper’s Experiment 5 discussion (page unavailable) states that easily learned items elicit higher judgments of learning (JOLs), supporting the point attributed to this source. The remark about not measuring effort or attention describes the citing authors’ own study, not Koriat’s. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hertzog et al., 2003 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and an advantage for generating errors over reading, t(23) = 3.36, p = .003,d = .28.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance: Experiment 2B (Euskara words).
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“final test performance differed between study methods, F(2,58) = 9.85, p < .001,p 2 = .25”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance: Experiment 2A (English words).
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and also revealed a benefit of errorful generation over incorrect choosing.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance: Experiment 2B (Euskara words).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aggregate JOLs showed a largely similar pattern (Figure 3A).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2A (English)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“generating nearly always produced an error, and the correct definition was available for much less timejust 7 s, compared with 17 s for Read trials.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants spent longer studying definitions for Read items (M = 8.02 s, SD = 4.35) than for both Generate items (M = 6.68,SD = 4.14), t(23) = 3.75, p = .001,d = .32,and Choice items (M = 5.35, SD = 3.90), t(23) = 9.25, p < .001,d = .65,and longer for Generate than for Choice items, t(23) = 4.41, p < .001,d = .33.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Study time
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and there was no difference between Read and Choice JOLs, t(23) = .28,p = .783,d = .07.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2B (Euskara)
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These high average JOLs given to Choice items were largely due to much higher JOLs for Choice items guessed correctly at study, while JOLs for items incorrect at study were no higher than JOLs for Read items”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 2A the stimuli were obscure English words which were likely to be largely unknown to participants pre-experimentally, yet they showed the same benefit of generating over reading.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In Experiment 2A, the obscure English words were likely to be largely unknown to participants before the experiment.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants' JOLs, however, showed a very different pattern, with the lowest item JOLs consistently being given to Generate items and the highest to Choice items.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all four experiments reported here, we observed a benefit of errorful generation over reading when participants learned definitions of previously unfamiliar English words or translations of novel foreign vocabulary, even though the correct answer was displayed for a much shorter time in the Generate than in the Read condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our second experiment replicated the benefit of generating over reading for unusual English words that we observed in Experiment 1 and showed that it extends to the learning of foreign vocabulary.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants in Experiment 2B had no prior knowledge of Euskara, yet they showed better final test performance for items for which they had generated an incorrect guess than for items they had studied in the Read condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants in Experiment 2B had no prior knowledge of Euskara.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twenty-seven participants (17 in the SP group, 10 in the EP group) showed a benefit of generating over reading, with only five (2 in the SP group, 3 in the EP group) showing the opposite pattern.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plaindirectn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The EP group gave higher aggregate JOLs to the Read condition (M = 40.3,SD = 4.3) than to the Choice (M = 34.3,SD = 5.2) or Generate (M = 29.8,SD = 3.6) conditions but the difference between the study methods fell short of significance, F(2,30) = 2.78, p = .078,p 2 = .16.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, JOLs for Choice items guessed incorrectly at study were significantly lower than for Read items, t(23) = 2.38, p = .026,though with the exclusion of two participants who performed above chance at study (see footnote 2), this difference was no longer significant, t(21) = 1.98, p = .061”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2B (Euskara)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the SP group, the difference was significant, F(2, 46) = 5.80, p = .006,p 2 = .20.Aggregate JOLs for the Choice condition (M = 40.8,SD = 21.1) were higher than JOLs for the Generate condition (M = 26.8,SD = 17.6), t(23) = 3.46, p = .002,d = .72,and for the Read condition (M = 28.7,SD = 15.9),t(23) = 2.32, p = .030,d = .65,with no difference between Read and Generate aggregate JOLs, t(23) =.49,”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Generate items, participants predicted poorest test performance while achieving highest performance.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants' aggregate JOLs were also highest in the Choice condition, though memory performance showed no advantage of choosing over either reading or generating.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“JOLs for Choice items correct at study were significantly higher than JOLs for Choice items incorrect at study F(1,38) = 57.6,p < .001,p 2 = .60,with no difference between the groups, F(1,38) = 1.83, p = .185,p 2 = .05,and no interaction, F(1,38) = .02,p = .901,p 2 = 0 (Figure 3C).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no difference between the groups, F(1,38) = .37,p = .545,p 2 = .01,but there was an interaction between Study method and Group, F(2,76) = 3.81, p = .027,p 2 = .09.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we compared this with the average similarity of the targets to all of the other targets (M =.105, SD = .045),t(59) = 1.81, p = .076.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants' JOLs, however, showed a very different pattern from their actual test performance, with the lowest item JOLs being given to Generate items and the highest to Choice items.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Choice JOLs were higher than Generate JOLs, t(39) = 3.25, p = .002,d = .55,with no difference between Generate and Read, t(39) = 1.78, p = .083,d = .32,or between Read and Choice, t(39) = 1.27, p = .211,d = .25.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“JOLs for Choice items incorrect at study were higher than JOLs for Generate items, t(23) = 2.22, p = .037,but again this difference disappeared (t(21) = 1.89, p = .072)”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2B (Euskara)
plainn = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as in Experiment 2, errorful generation produced better final test performance than either reading or incorrect choosing but participants failed to predict this benefit, giving the lowest JOLs to Generate items.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants spent the same amount of time studying items they would later get right at test (M = 7.58 s, SD = 3.77, for Read; M = 6.32,SD = 4.26 for Generate; M = 5.24, SD = 3.86 for Choice) as they did studying items they would later get wrong (M = 8.31, SD = 5.52, for Read; M = 6.13,SD = 3.54 for Generate; M = 4.81, SD = 3.50 for Choice).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but now there was no difference between JOLs for Read items and those for Choice items incorrect at study, t(39) = .11,p = .910,d =”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was also the case in Exp 3, for the SP group: There was no difference between the three study methods, F(2,46) = .43,p = .651.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When, in Experiment 3, participants had the option, at final test, of selecting their own generated responses and their own chosen responses, they were more likely to pick a definition they had incorrectly selected at study in the Choice condition than one they had incorrectly generated in the Generate condition, which may have contributed to the advantage for generating over choosing.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incorrect guessing in the Choice condition, however, was less effective, producing equivalent memory performance to reading.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Somewhat surprisingly, and unlike in Experiments 1 and 3, participants in Experiments 2A and 2B selected the correct definition/translation at study in the Choice condition at a rate higher than chance.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and did not differ between conditions, F(2,18) = .35,p = .710.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and longer for Generate than for Choice JOLs (M = 3.40s, SD = 1.6), t(23) = 2.74, p = .012.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean response times were 3.51s (SD = 1.5) for the Read condition; 3.69s (SD = 2.0) for the Generate condition; and 3.59s (SD = 3.1) for the Choice condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when participants made an error at test in the Choice condition, they chose their own original error at a rate no higher than chance, suggesting that incorrect choosing caused no particular detriment to memory.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and no interaction, F(2,40) = 1.46, p = .245.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Choice JOLs for items incorrect at study were often higher (Exp 2B and Exp 3) than JOLs for Generate items, even though both involved making an error at study, suggesting that the making of an error was not the only factor affecting JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although incorrect choosing led to lower test performance than errorful generation, it never led to worse performance than reading.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A 2 (Accuracy: correct vs. incorrect) x 3 (Study method) ANOVA showed a main effect of Study method, F(2,40) = 30.68,p < .001”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall these results demonstrate that, within each condition, participants showed some ability to predict their true likelihood of recalling each item, although this was not statistically significant in Experiment 2B.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no effect of Accuracy, F(1,20) = .02,p = .884”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean time to make JOLs was 2.54s (SD = .8)in the Read condition; 2.57s (SD = .6)in the Generate condition; and 2.49s (SD = .5)in the Choice condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 2A there was no difference in JOL response times between the three study conditions, F(1.29, 37.37) = .22,p = .704(Greenhouse-Geisser correction applied).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“higher confidence ratings (what Dunlosky et al. called”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dunlosky, Serra, Matvey and Rawson (2005) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, Choice JOLs for items correct at study were always higher than JOLs for Read items, even when participants gave similar aggregate JOLs to Choice and Read items (as in Exp 2B and Exp 3), suggesting that success at study for Choice items gave participants high confidence that they would also remember those items at final test.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 1, the number of correct generations was largely driven by the responses of one participant who generated correct guesses for over half the items in the Generate condition and three quarters in the Choice condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a more educationally relevant learning scenario, we found that generating errors could be helpful to memory even during the learning of novel material but that participants were strikingly unaware of this benefit.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in Table 3, Choice items correct at study were indeed better remembered than Read items, in line with participants' JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants spent longer making JOLs for Generate items (M = 3.66s, SD = 1.6) than they did for Read items (M = 3.27s, SD = 1.4), t(23) = 2.84, p = .009”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, generating errors benefitted vocabulary learning even when the items to be learned had no pre-existing associations, but participants did not predict this benefit.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants had no pre-existing associations with the novel words or foreign vocabulary before the experiment.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making incorrect choices was neither harmful nor helpful to memory compared with reading.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 2B, however, there was a significant difference in times to make JOLs between the three conditions, F(2,46) = 5.85, p = .005).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this is the case, this could limit the usefulness of testing in situations where errors are likely to be made, but this view is based on just a handful of recent studies, all of which have used artificial tasks and materials which are rather different from those likely to be encountered during real world learning, and it remains to be seen whether an errorful generation benefit could occur in a”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Forlano and Hoffman (1937) found that “telling” was better than “guessing” when schoolgirls learned Hebrew-English word pairs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Forlano and Hoffman (1937) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Berlyne, Carey, Lazare, Parlow, and Tiberius (1968) obtained similar findings for intentional learning of Turkish-English word pairs in adults.However, they did find an advantage of generating under incidental learning conditions”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berlyne, Carey, Lazare, Parlow, and Tiberius (1968) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, although there was no overall detriment to the Choice condition by comparison with the Read condition, there was some evidence that errors made at study interfered with final test performance.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each item appeared equally often in each condition across participants.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Materials.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“With repeated testing, superior performance has even been observed (McDaniel, Wildman, & Anderson, 2012).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDaniel, Wildman, & Anderson, 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, any negative effect of interference seems to have been offset by a positive effect of selecting a definition from a choice of two, perhaps because this involved deeper processing than passively reading the word and its definition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants' JOLs, then, were strikingly inaccurate: the Generate condition produced the highest recall scores but the lowest JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2A (English)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each subset was matched for average number of letters and syllables per word, and each subset contained the same number of nouns, verbs and adjectives.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Materials.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“People typically believe that studying is more effective than testing for previously studied material, even though the converse is true (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Each lure was matched with the true definition or translation for number of syllables and for approximate word frequency (Kucera & Francis, 1967).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Materials.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kucera & Francis, 1967
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assumption of sphericity was not met, χ 2 (2) = 9.63, p = .008,so the Huynh-Feldt correction was applied.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2A (English)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“total trial time was equated for each of the three conditions.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Errorful generation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as for the English version of the task, generating produced the highest final test scores but the lowest JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2B (Euskara)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 3 we equated familiarity of the lures between the three conditions.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Experiment 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generating errors (which happens on almost every trial) leads to less fluency and lower JOLs, while reading leads to intermediate fluency and JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2A (English)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If metacognitive beliefs influence study decisions, such as the decision as to how much effort needs to be applied to encoding a given item, participants may make more effort to learn definitions for items subjectively experienced as more difficult and this could be one way that even errorful generation potentiates subsequent encoding.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results again suggest that participants were strongly influenced by their success or failure at study, and particularly by the fortuitous selection of a correct choice.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2B (Euskara)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even when they made errors, participants believed they would learn better by the Choice than the Generate method, though in reality the reverse was true.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the benefit of generating over reading in the SP group suggests that the superiority of the Generate condition was not due to displaced rehearsal of Generate items during study of Read items, since allowing participants to choose how long to study should also eliminate any need for displaced rehearsal.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although they spent significantly more time studying Choice items that were incorrect at study than correct ones, they spent even longer on Generate items, suggesting they believed the Choice items would be more easily learned even when they had made an error.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
- Rests on an assumption: Study time reflects the amount of effort or attention participants devoted to encoding.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our proposal is that higher JOLs in the Read and Choice conditions reflect an illusion of knowing which leads to less effort being applied to encoding, or to a less efficient encoding strategy, than for Generate items, where initial responses are always incorrect.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is interesting that the advantage for generating over reading was observed even though participants spent longer on Read than Generate items, suggesting that there was something about the process of generating a guess which enabled more efficient processing of the correct answer.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although JOLs showed some ability to predict final test scores (Figure 4A), these data should be interpreted with caution since they may be affected by item selection effects.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2A (English)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Against this interpretation, however, study times for Read items include time spent processing the cue word, whereas in the Generate and Choice conditions this has already taken place before timing begins, a factor which may at least partly account for the longer study times for Read items.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is consistent with other research showing that greater effort during study leads both to better recall and to lower JOLs (Zaromb, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2010).”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zaromb, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore even when an incorrect choice is made, the answer, when it appears, is already familiar and may, as a result, be processed more fluently, leading to higher JOLs and shorter study times.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making an incorrect choice also leads to low fluency and JOLs, but correct choice -despite being fortuitous -leads to much greater fluency and JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Judgments of learning: Experiment 2A (English)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together with the finding that JOLs were also higher for Choice items participants got right at study than for those they got wrong, these results suggest that participants' experience of success in the Choice condition led them to perceive correctly guessed items as easier to learn, both devoting less time to their study and giving them higher JOLs.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Study time
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Read condition may even give rise to an illusion of knowing, or”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fischhoff, 1977 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generating errors therefore leads both to lower JOLs and to higher final test performance.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus generation can benefit memory both by strengthening existing associations and by potentiating the encoding of feedback.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is consistent with our proposal that fluency at encoding influences participants' metacognitive judgments which in turn affect the degree of effort or attention applied to the processing of corrective feedback.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, the pattern of results we observed could be due to a combination of factors.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of one participant this left only one usable item so this participant's data were excluded.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If participants apply more effort, or more effective encoding strategies, to items they find difficult to learn this could account, at least in part, for the surprising benefit of errorful generation.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“these results should be treated with caution since item selection artefacts make it impossible to draw any conclusions about them.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nelson, 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This perception that Generate items were harder to learn than items studied under the other two methods may have led participants to apply more effort to the learning of corrective feedback for Generate items, consistent with research showing that studying difficult items requires greater cognitive effort which in turn enhances memory”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We recomputed all the subsequent analyses with these participants excluded and none of the conclusions was changed, except (as noted in the relevant Results section) for two comparisons involving JOLs for Choice items in Experiment 2B, which come into line with the findings of Experiment 2A when these two participants are excluded.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our study, aggregate JOLs given at the end of the study phase may also have reflected participants' expectations rather than their actual experience, and these too showed that participants expected memory to be poorest for items studied in the Generate condition.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data were not captured for the EP group.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We reran the analysis with this participant excluded and the results were unaffected.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Conclusion
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our finding that JOLs were heavily influenced by success at study is theoretically interesting because it suggests that not only are people's perceptions of their learning strongly affected by fluency of processing at encoding but that this fluency is itself influenced by the production of either a correct or incorrect answer immediately prior to encoding of corrective feedback.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A possible explanation for our findings is that participants' curiosity about the correct answer was aroused to a greater extent in the Generate than in the Choice condition, perhaps because searching for an answer in the Generate condition involves more active engagement and effort than simply selecting one in the Choice condition or perhaps because, in the Choice condition, the participant knows”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In our study, where participants had to learn completely novel material, they would have known that their generated guesses were almost certain to be wrong but they may still have been highly curious to learn the correct answer, and the discrepancy between their own response and the actual answer may have induced a similar sense of surprise and led to greater attention being applied to encoding”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rescorla & Wagner, 1972
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants knew their generated guesses were almost certain to be wrong.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis yielded a similar pattern to that of the subset.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plainn = 107- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, participants do not realise that the extra effort involved in processing Generate feedback will lead to better memory, so they still give low JOLs to these items.”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Metacognition and errorful generation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assumption of sphericity was not met, χ 2 (2) = 11.10,p = .004,so the Huynh-Feldt correction was applied”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants in Experiment 2B had no prior knowledge of Euskara.
“Participants in Experiment 2B had no prior knowledge of Euskara”
The paper relies on this without support.
In Experiment 2A, the obscure English words were likely to be largely unknown to participants before the experiment.
“In Experiment 2A the stimuli were obscure English words which were likely to be largely unknown to participants pre-experimentally”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants had no pre-existing associations with the novel words or foreign vocabulary before the experiment.
“the stimulus materials were previously unknown to participants so there could be no pre-existing association to activate and reinforce”
The paper relies on this without support.
JOLs measure participants' beliefs or predictions about their future memory performance.
“Even when they made errors, participants believed they would learn better by the Choice than the Generate method, though in reality the reverse was true.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Study time reflects the amount of effort or attention participants devoted to encoding.
“The amount of time participants in the SP group allocated to studying correct definitions also reflected this misconception.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Test lures were equally familiar across the three study conditions.
“even though test lures were equally familiar across the three study conditions”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants knew their generated guesses were almost certain to be wrong.
“they would have known that their generated guesses were almost certain to be wrong”
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(39) = 3.49, p < .001”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Final test performance
Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t (23) = 3.64, p < .001”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Study time
Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(23) = 2.21, p = .046”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Experiment 2B (Euskara words).
Reported p = .046 · recomputed p = .037
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(39) = 3.24, p < .002”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
Reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .002
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(105) = 2.45, p = .015”
§ The benefit of generating errors during learning > Additional information
Reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .016
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upt(23) = 2.21reported p = .046 · recomputed p = .037
“t(23) = 2.21, p = .046”
- Doesn’t add upt(39) = 3.49reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(39) = 3.49, p < .001”
- Doesn’t add upt(23) = 3.64reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t (23) = 3.64, p < .001”
- Doesn’t add upt(39) = 3.24reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .002
“t(39) = 3.24, p < .002”
- Doesn’t add upt(105) = 2.45reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .016
“t(105) = 2.45, p = .015”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.6reported p = .133 · recomputed p = .123
“t(23) = 1.6, p = .133”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 7.62reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“F(2,46) = 7.62, p = .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.65reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(23) = 3.65, p = .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.8reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010
“t(23) = 2.80, p = .010”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.77reported p = .447 · recomputed p = .449
“t(23) = .77,p = .447”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 3.33reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .045
“F (2,46) = 3.33, p = .044”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.4reported p = .025 · recomputed p = .025
“t(23) = 2.40, p = .025”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.91reported p = .069 · recomputed p = .069
“t(23) = 1.91, p = .069”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.01reported p = .99 · recomputed p = .992
“t(23) = .01,p = .990”
- Consistentt(15) = 3.44reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“t(15) = 3.44, p = .004”
- Consistentt(17) = 0.78reported p = .447 · recomputed p = .446
“t(17) = .78,p = .447”
- Consistentt(15) = 5.31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(15) = 5.31, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 2.76reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010
“t(29) = 2.76, p = .010”
- ConsistentF(2, 58) = 9.85reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,58) = 9.85, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 4.27reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 4.27, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 3.62reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(29) = 3.62, p = .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 0.54reported p = .596 · recomputed p = .593
“t (29) = .54,p = .596”
- ConsistentF(2, 58) = 10.01reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,58) = 10.01,p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 4.28reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 4.28, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 3.91reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 3.91, p = .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 0.9reported p = .373 · recomputed p = .376
“t(29) = .90,p = .373”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.38reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .181
“t(23) = 1.38, p = .180”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 6.05reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005
“F(2,46) = 6.05, p = .005”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.36reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“t(23) = 3.36, p = .003”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.84reported p = .079 · recomputed p = .079
“t (23) = 1.84, p = .079”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.68reported p = .106 · recomputed p = .106
“t(23) = 1.68, p = .106”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 6.81reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“F(2,46) = 6.81, p = .003”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.77reported p = .011 · recomputed p = .011
“t(23) = 2.77, p = .011”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.14reported p = .892 · recomputed p = .890
“t(23) = .14,p = .892”
- Consistentt(16) = 2.59reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020
“t(16) = 2.59, p = .020”
- ConsistentF(2, 58) = 20.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,58) = 20.73,p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 3.71reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 3.71, p = .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 6.37reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 6.37, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 2.59reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015
“t(29) = 2.59, p = .015”
- Consistentχ²(2) = 9.63reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008
“χ 2 (2) = 9.63, p = .008”
- ConsistentF(1.62, 46.99) = 7.78reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(1.62,46.99) = 7.78, p = .002”
- Consistentt(29) = 2.58reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015
“t(29) = 2.58, p = .015”
- Consistentt(29) = 3.49reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“t(29) = 3.49, p = .002”
- Consistentt(29) = 0.85reported p = .4 · recomputed p = .402
“t(29) = .85,p = .400”
- Consistentt(29) = 7.02reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 7.02, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 6.62reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(29) = 6.62, p < .001”
- Consistentt(29) = 0.77reported p = .45 · recomputed p = .448
“t(29) = .77,p = .450”
- Consistentt(29) = 1.74reported p = .093 · recomputed p = .092
“t(29) = 1.74, p = .093”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 12.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,46) = 12.60, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.69reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(23) = 3.69, p = .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 4.31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 4.31, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.38reported p = .181 · recomputed p = .181
“t(23) = 1.38, p = .181”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 5.09reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010
“F(2,46) = 5.09, p = .010”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.21reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“t(23) = 3.21, p = .004”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.28reported p = .783 · recomputed p = .782
“t(23) = .28,p = .783”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.73reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012
“t(23) = 2.73, p = .012”
- Consistentt(23) = 5.52reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 5.52, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 4.36reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 4.36, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.38reported p = .026 · recomputed p = .026
“t(23) = 2.38, p = .026”
- Consistentt(21) = 1.98reported p = .061 · recomputed p = .061
“t(21) = 1.98, p = .061”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.22reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .037
“t(23) = 2.22, p = .037”
- Consistentt(21) = 1.89reported p = .072 · recomputed p = .073
“t(21) = 1.89, p = .072”
- Consistentt(59) = 1.81reported p = .076 · recomputed p = .075
“t(59) = 1.81, p = .076”
- Consistentt(39) = 1.73reported p = .091 · recomputed p = .092
“t(39) = 1.73, p = .091”
- ConsistentF(2, 76) = 9.17reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,76) = 9.17, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 0.27reported p = .605 · recomputed p = .606
“F(1,38) = .27,p = .605”
- ConsistentF(2, 76) = 1.57reported p = .216 · recomputed p = .215
“F(2,76) = 1.57, p = .216”
- Consistentt(39) = 5.22reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(39) = 5.22, p < .001”
- Consistentt(39) = 2.49reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017
“t(39) = 2.49, p = .017”
- Consistentt(39) = 1.75reported p = .089 · recomputed p = .088
“t(39) = 1.75, p = .089”
- ConsistentF(1.7, 64.44) = 7.35reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(1.70, 64.44) = 7.35, p = .002”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 0.19reported p = .662 · recomputed p = .665
“F(1,38) = .19,p = .662”
- ConsistentF(1.7, 64.44) = 1.53reported p = .224 · recomputed p = .224
“F(1.70, 64.44) = 1.53, p = .224”
- Consistentt(39) = 1.36reported p = .181 · recomputed p = .182
“t(39) = 1.36, p = .181”
- Consistentt(39) = 2.08reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044
“t(39) = 2.08, p = .044”
- Consistentt(39) = 2.21reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .033
“t(39) = 2.21, p = .033”
- Consistentt(39) = 0.27reported p = .786 · recomputed p = .789
“t(39) = .27,p = .786”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 0.53reported p = .469 · recomputed p = .471
“F(1,38) = .53,p = .469”
- ConsistentF(1.62, 61.54) = 3.78reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .037
“F(1.62, 61.54) = 3.78, p = .037”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.04reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006
“t(23) = 3.04, p = .006”
- Consistentt(23) = 1.34reported p = .193 · recomputed p = .193
“t(23) = 1.34, p = .193”
- Consistentt(15) = 0.95reported p = .355 · recomputed p = .357
“t(15) = .95,p = .355”
- Consistentt(15) = 4.25reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(15) = 4.25, p = .001”
- Consistentt(15) = 2.66reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .018
“t (15) = 2.66, p = .018”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 57.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,38) = 57.6,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 1.83reported p = .185 · recomputed p = .184
“F(1,38) = 1.83, p = .185”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 0.02reported p = .901 · recomputed p = .888
“F(1,38) = .02,p = .901”
- Consistentt(39) = 7.83reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(39) = 7.83, p < .001”
- Consistentt(39) = 1.06reported p = .296 · recomputed p = .296
“t(39) = 1.06, p = .296”
- ConsistentF(2, 76) = 4.1reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020
“F(2,76) = 4.10, p = .020”
- Consistentt(39) = 3.25reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“t(39) = 3.25, p = .002”
- Consistentt(39) = 1.78reported p = .083 · recomputed p = .083
“t(39) = 1.78, p = .083”
- Consistentt(39) = 1.27reported p = .211 · recomputed p = .212
“t(39) = 1.27, p = .211”
- ConsistentF(1, 38) = 0.37reported p = .545 · recomputed p = .547
“F(1,38) = .37,p = .545”
- ConsistentF(2, 76) = 3.81reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .026
“F(2,76) = 3.81, p = .027”
- ConsistentF(2, 30) = 2.78reported p = .078 · recomputed p = .078
“F(2,30) = 2.78, p = .078”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 5.8reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006
“F(2, 46) = 5.80, p = .006”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.46reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“t(23) = 3.46, p = .002”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.32reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .030
“t(23) = 2.32, p = .030”
- Consistentt(23) = 0.49reported p = .632 · recomputed p = .629
“t(23) =.49, p = .632”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 35.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 46) = 35.44,p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.75reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t(23) = 3.75, p = .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 9.25reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 9.25, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 4.41reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 4.41, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.13reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005
“t(23) = 3.13, p = .005”
- Consistentt(37) = 2.44reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020
“t(37) = 2.44, p = .020”
- ConsistentF(2, 70) = 2.67reported p = .076 · recomputed p = .076
“F (2,70) = 2.67, p = .076”
- Consistentχ²(2) = 11.1reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“χ 2 (2) = 11.10,p = .004”
- ConsistentF(1.69, 64.22) = 24.43reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1.69, 64.22) = 24.43,p < .001”
- Consistentt(39) = 6.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(39) = 6.95, p < .001”
- Consistentt(39) = 4.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(39) = 4.75, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1.69, 64.22) = 3.76reported p = .035 · recomputed p = .035
“F(1.69, 64.22) = 3.76, p = .035”
- Consistentt(23) = 7.71reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 7.71, p < .001”
- Consistentt(23) = 3.92reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(23) = 3.92, p = .001”
- Consistentt(15) = 2.72reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016
“t(15) = 2.72, p = .016”
- Consistentt(15) = 0.39reported p = .701 · recomputed p = .702
“t(15) = .39,p = .701”
- ConsistentF(1.62, 61.54) = 6.84reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“F(1.62, 61.54) = 6.84, p = .004”
- Consistentt(39) = 3.05reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“t(39) = 3.05, p = .004”
- Consistentt(39) = 0.11reported p = .91 · recomputed p = .913
“t(39) = .11,p = .910”
- ConsistentF(1.29, 37.37) = 0.22reported p = .704 · recomputed p = .704
“F(1.29, 37.37) = .22,p = .704”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 0.43reported p = .651 · recomputed p = .653
“F(2,46) = .43,p = .651”
- ConsistentF(2, 46) = 5.85reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005
“F(2,46) = 5.85, p = .005”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.84reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009
“t(23) = 2.84, p = .009”
- Consistentt(23) = 2.74reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012
“t(23) = 2.74, p = .012”
- Consistentt(24) = 4.43reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(24) = 4.43, p < .001”
- Consistentt(19) = 3.5reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“t(19) = 3.50, p = .002”
- Consistentt(24) = 2.96reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007
“t(24) = 2.96, p = .007”
- ConsistentF(2, 36) = 0.112reported p = .894 · recomputed p = .894
“F (2,36) = .112,p = .894”
- Consistentt(16) = 0.69reported p = .501 · recomputed p = .500
“t(16) = .69,p = .501”
- Consistentt(10) = 1.28reported p = .23 · recomputed p = .229
“t(10) = 1.28, p = .230”
- Consistentt(16) = 0.99reported p = .336 · recomputed p = .337
“t(16) = .99,p = .336”
- ConsistentF(2, 18) = 0.35reported p = .71 · recomputed p = .709
“F(2,18) = .35,p = .710”
- Consistentt(38) = 7.36reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(38) = 7.36, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 208) = 7.36reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 208) = 7.36, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 104) = 2.72reported p = .102 · recomputed p = .102
“F(1,104) = 2.72, p = .102”
- ConsistentF(2, 208) = 2.32reported p = .101 · recomputed p = .101
“F(2,208) = 2.32, p = .101”
- Consistentt(105) = 4.18reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(105) = 4.18, p < .001”
- Consistentt(105) = 1.2reported p = .234 · recomputed p = .233
“t(105) = 1.20, p = .234”
- ConsistentF(2, 40) = 30.68reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,40) = 30.68,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 20) = 0.02reported p = .884 · recomputed p = .889
“F(1,20) = .02,p = .884”
- ConsistentF(2, 40) = 1.46reported p = .245 · recomputed p = .244
“F(2,40) = 1.46, p = .245”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
(1967) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,532
Rescorla, R. A. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,268
An introduction to latent semantic analysis
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638539809545028 · Cited by 4,880
Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x · Cited by 2,867
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J.-M., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Rebecca Treiman, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193014 · Cited by 2,758
The MRC Psycholinguistic Database
Coltheart, M. (1981) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640748108400805 · Cited by 2,506
The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x · Cited by 2,037
The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152408 · Cited by 1,791
(1994) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4561.001.0001 · Cited by 1,770
The generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592 · Cited by 1,659
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [9]9. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- [67]67. Richland, l. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: do unsuccessful tests enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 243 -257.
- [71]71. Schwartz, B. L., Benjamin, A.S., & Bjork, R.A. (1997). The inferential and experiential bass of memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(5), 132 -137.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Putting Education in “Educational” Apps
Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015) · Gothic.net · doi:10.1177/1529100615569721 · Cited by 1,305
“When adults generate an incorrect response and are then given feedback, they show better retention than if they either were provided with or chose a correct answer (Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
BackgroundLearning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615569000 · Cited by 651
“…& Fevreiski, 1983) and is now garnering considerable empirical attention once again (Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012; Hays, Kornell, & Bjork, 2013; Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012; Knight, Ball, Brewer, DeWitt, & Marsh, 2012; Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Yan, Yu, Garcia, & Bjork, 2014).”
BackgroundDesirable Difficulties in Vocabulary Learning
Bjork, R. A., & Kroll, J. F. (2015) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.2.0241 · Cited by 176
“However, an interesting and provocative series of experiments by Potts and Shanks (2014) suggests that error generation might indeed facilitate such vocabulary learning. In two experiments, Potts and Shanks (2014) had English- speaking participants learn words they did not know. In one experiment the words were Englis…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWhen generating a prediction boosts learning: The element of surprise
Brod, G., Hasselhorn, M., & Bunge, S. A. (2018) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.013 · Cited by 131
Retrieval potentiates new learning: A theoretical and meta-analytic review.
Chan, J. C. K., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000166 · Cited by 143
Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: a review of the forward testing effect
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2018) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y · Cited by 119
Self-citationThe role of interest in memory for trivia questions: An investigation with a large-scale database.
Fastrich, G. M., Kerr, T., Castel, A. D., & Murayama, K. (2017) · Motivation Science · doi:10.1037/mot0000087 · Cited by 105
“The results showed that the act of making a guess enhanced learning in comparison to simply studying question-answer pairs without attempting to produce the correct answer, indicating the role of retrieval attempts in facilitating learning (see also Potts and Shanks, 2014).”
ResultHow Retrieval Attempts Affect Learning
Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.03.003 · Cited by 104
“For instance, Potts and Shanks (2014) presented participants with obscure English words (eg, frampold) and had them read, generate, or choose the correct meaning from two possible choices (eg, quarrelsome).”
BackgroundRivers, M. L. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09578-2 · Cited by 114
Retrieval attempts enhance learning, but retrieval success (versus failure) does not matter.
Kornell, N., Klein, P. J., & Rawson, K. A. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0037850 · Cited by 100
Boers, F., Dang, T. C. T., & Strong, B. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816651464 · Cited by 95
“The evidence in favour of testing is strongest when learners supply the correct response and then receive confirmation that it is correct (Allen, Mahler, and Estes 1969; Karpicke and Roediger 2008), although benefits of corrective feedback have also been attested (Bahrick and Hall 2005; Potts and Shanks 2014).”
BackgroundStudents Can (Mostly) Recognize Effective Learning, So Why Do They Not Do It?
Rea, S. D., Wang, L., Muenks, K. M., & Yan, V. X. (2022) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence10040127 · Cited by 90
The Error in Trial and Error: Exercises on Phrasal Verbs
Strong, B., & Boers, F. (2018) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.478 · Cited by 78
“It is important to mention, however, that Potts and Shanks’ (2014) findings have not been confirmed in some other experiments.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialvan den Broek, G. S. E., Takashima, A., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12285 · Cited by 67
“…that the information provided after learners have (unsuccessfully) attempted to guess or retrieve this information from memory is remembered better than the information that is directly presented to learners (e.g., Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Richland, Kornell, & Kao, 2009).”
BackgroundLearning from errors: Students' and instructors' practices, attitudes, and beliefs
Pan, S. C., Sana, F., Samani, J., Cooke, J., & Kim, J. A. (2020) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2020.1815790 · Cited by 65
“…video-recorded lectures (e.g., Carpenter & Toftness, 2017), scientific texts (e.g., Richland et al., 2009), foreign language vocabulary (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014), and facts (e.g., Kornell et al., 2009), and has also been demonstrated in classrooms (e.g., Bjork et al., 2015), across…”
BackgroundWeighing Up Exercises on Phrasal Verbs: Retrieval Versus Trial‐and‐Error Practices
Strong, B., & Boers, F. (2019) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12579 · Cited by 73
An integrated model of learning from errors
Zhang, Q., & Fiorella, L. (2022) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2022.2149525 · Cited by 80
“…students to generate answers to questions before knowing anything about the questions (e.g., a pretest of the meaning of Euskara nouns) significantly improved their memory for the tested information, even though students ’ answers in the pretest were almost always wrong (Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
InfluentialMera, Y., Rodríguez, G., & Marin-Garcia, E. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-021-02022-8 · Cited by 74
“These results were replicated with Basque-English translations (e.g., “hodei–cloud”; Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDistractors in Parsons Problems Decrease Learning Efficiency for Young Novice Programmers
Harms, K. J., Chen, J., & Kelleher, C. L. (2016) · ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) · doi:10.1145/2960310.2960314 · Cited by 63
“Feedback was found to improve learning when test takers generated errors during multiple choice testing [4, 6, 20, 48].”
BackgroundPan, S. C., & Carpenter, S. K. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09814-5 · Cited by 60
“…make predictions about the likelihood of future recall (i.e., judgments of learning or JOLs) of word pairs that were pretested or read, participants tend to give lower predictions to pretested pairs (e.g., Pan & Rivers, 2023; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Yang et al., 2017; Zawadzka & Hanczakowski, 2019).”
BackgroundPredicting as a learning strategy
Brod, G. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-021-01904-1 · Cited by 52
Prevention–Permission–Promotion: A Review of Approaches to Errors in Learning
Wong, S. S. H., & Lim, S. W. H. (2018) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1501693 · Cited by 53
“At the same time, generating errors may enhance memory by potentiating the encoding of subsequent corrective feedback (e.g., Kornell et al., 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014), especially when an existing cue–target association has been suppressed due to the error, such that later relearning attempts…”
BackgroundInfluentialMistakes as stepping stones: Effects of errors on episodic memory among younger and older adults.
Cyr, A.-A., & Anderson, N. D. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000073 · Cited by 50
Edmunds, C. E. R., Milton, F., & Wills, A. J. (2014) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.978875 · Cited by 58
“…reasonable support for the idea that providing an opportunity for error improves learning (Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012; Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2013), such an effect is not always seen even in multidimensional category structures (Newell et al., 2007) and, in some memory tasks,…”
A REVIEW OF LABORATORY STUDIES OF ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE VOCABULARY TRAINING
Rice, C. A., & Tokowicz, N. (2019) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263119000500 · Cited by 52
“An example of this in L2 vocabulary learning comes from Potts and Shanks (2014), who trained native Englishspeakers on rare English words (Exp. 1) or Basque words (Exp. 2 and 3).”
BackgroundTheories of the generation effect and the impact of generation constraint: A meta-analytic review
McCurdy, M. P., Viechtbauer, W., Sklenar, A. M., Frankenstein, A. N., & Leshikar, E. D. (2020) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01762-3 · Cited by 52
Optimizing the Efficacy of Learning Objectives through Pretests
Sana, F., Forrin, N. D., Sharma, M., Dubljevic, T., Ho, P., Jalil, E., & Kim, J. A. (2020) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.19-11-0257 · Cited by 57
“This learning benefit has been recently shown with materials of various complexities (e.g., paired associates: Kornell et al., 2009; vocabulary: Potts and Shanks, 2014; reading passages: Richland et al., 2009; video lectures: Carpenter and Toftness, 2017).”
BackgroundToward consilience in the use of task-level feedback to promote learning
Butler, A. C., & Woodward, N. R. (2018) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2018.09.001 · Cited by 43
Weber, F., Wambsganss, T., & Söllner, M. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13529 · Cited by 42
Zhao, W., Li, B., Shanks, D. R., Zhao, W., Zheng, J., Hu, X., Su, N., Fan, T., Yin, Y., Luo, L., et al. (2022) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13689 · Cited by 35
Self-citationWhy does guessing incorrectly enhance, rather than impair, retention?
Yan, V. X., Yu, Y., Garcia, M. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0454-6 · Cited by 39
“The semantic activation hypothesis cannot be the whole story, however, since Potts and Shanks (2014) recently showed benefits of anticipating upcoming to-be-learned responses in a series of experiments where (relevant) semantic activation is impossible: Participants had to guess and learn the…”
BackgroundMethodLearning from errors is attributable to episodic recollection rather than semantic mediation
Metcalfe, J., & Huelser, B. J. (2019) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107296 · Cited by 38
The forward effects of testing transfer to different domains of learning.
Yang, C., Chew, S.-J., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2018) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000320 · Cited by 37
Self-citationBreitwieser, J., & Brod, G. (2021) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13393 · Cited by 35
“Even when participants do not have extensive prior knowledge to build their prediction on and can, thus, only guess, this has been shown to improve their learning (Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012; Metcalfe & Kornell, 2007; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Richland, Kornell, & Kao, 2009).”
BackgroundLearning from failure: Errorful generation improves memory for items, not associations
Seabrooke, T., Hollins, T. J., Kent, C. D., Wills, A. J., & Mitchell, C. J. (2018) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.001 · Cited by 37
Two routes to memory benefits of guessing.
Zawadzka, K., & Hanczakowski, M. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000676 · Cited by 35
Pulido, M. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2019) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728919000622 · Cited by 28
PREDICTION AND ERROR-BASED LEARNING IN L2 PROCESSING AND ACQUISITION
Bovolenta, G., & Marsden, E. J. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000723 · Cited by 41
Yang, C., Yu, R., Hu, X., Luo, L., Huang, T. S.-T., & Shanks, D. R. (2021) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-020-09254-4 · Cited by 29
Self-citationCONTEXTUAL WORD LEARNING IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE
Elgort, I., Beliaeva, N., & Boers, F. (2019) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263119000561 · Cited by 31
“Potts and Shanks (2014) reported positive effects of trial-and-error learning on meaning recognition of rare English words and words in an unfamiliar language, Euskara.”
BackgroundMetacognitive awareness of the pretesting effect improves with self-regulation support
Pan, S. C., & Rivers, M. L. (2023) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-022-01392-1 · Cited by 33
“…including the generation of semantic mediators (i.e., words that link cues with targets), search set processes, error correction signals, reminding, and attentional factors (for a review, see Mera et al., 2021; see also Pan, Sana, Schmitt, et al., 2020; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Yang et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe effect of unsuccessful retrieval on children’s subsequent learning
Carneiro, P., Lapa, A., & Finn, B. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.09.010 · Cited by 25
Polack, C. W., & Miller, R. R. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000323 · Cited by 36
The benefits of successive relearning on multiple learning outcomes.
Higham, P. A., Zengel, B., Bartlett, L. K., & Hadwin, J. A. (2022) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000693 · Cited by 23
Exercises on collocations: a comparison of trial-and-error and exemplar-guided procedures
Stengers, H., & Boers, F. (2015) · Journal of Spanish Language Teaching · doi:10.1080/23247797.2015.1104030 · Cited by 24
The effect of recall, reproduction, and restudy on word learning: a pre-registered study
Krishnan, S., Watkins, K. E., & Bishop, D. (2017) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-017-0198-8 · Cited by 26
“Other studies have also suggested that feedback can enhance the testing effect [61, 62], although many of these studies do not test the learning of novel phonology.”
ResultOn the Role of Error in Motor Learning
Lee, T. D., Eliasz, K. L., Gonzalez, D. A., Alguire, K., Ding, K., & Dhaliwal, C. (2015) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2015.1046545 · Cited by 23
“Other evidence to support the backward-chaining method were reported by Simek and O’Brien as well as Rushall and Ford (1982). The important theoretical ingredient of the backwardchaining method is that mastery occurs before an increase in the skill’s complexity is introduced.”
MethodConditions of highly specific learning through cued recall
Pan, S. C., Lovelett, J. T., Stoeckenius, D., & Rickard, T. C. (2019) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01593-x · Cited by 22
Learning from your mistakes: does it matter if you’re out in left foot, I mean field?
Cyr, A.-A., & Anderson, N. D. (2018) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1464189 · Cited by 20
“…was that participants would have been equally likely to correctly estimate the meaning of the Spanish words in the Errorless as in the Trial-and-Error condition, and that showing both would speak to potential selection effects in our results (for similar reasoning, see Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
ResultSelective effects of errorful generation on recognition memory: the role of motivation and surprise
Seabrooke, T., Mitchell, C. J., Wills, A. J., Waters, J. L., & Hollins, T. J. (2019) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2019.1647247 · Cited by 21
“This can be contrasted with previous errorful generation experiments, where the effect was assessed for single targets that had been either guessed or not guessed on any given trial (Potts et al., 2019; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Seabrooke et al., 2019).”
InfluentialPretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs
Seabrooke, T., Mitchell, C. J., Wills, A. J., & Hollins, T. J. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01810-y · Cited by 20
A Framework of Episodic Updating
Finn, B. (2017) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2017.03.006 · Cited by 18
Kroll, J. F., & Ma, F. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118829516.ch13 · Cited by 19
The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect
Seabrooke, T., Mitchell, C. J., Wills, A. J., Inkster, A. B., & Hollins, T. J. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01218-6 · Cited by 19
“This result replicates previous demonstrations of the benefits of pretesting (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014; Seabrooke, Hollins, et al., 2019a).”
InfluentialWong, S. S. H. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09739-z · Cited by 20
“Alternatively, in errorful generation (e.g., Kang et al., 2011; Kornell et al., 2009; Potts and Shanks, 2014), productive failure (e.g., Kapur, 2008, 2016; Kapur and Bielaczyc, 2012), and error management training (e.g., Keith and Frese, 2008), errors are actively induced through purposefully…”
BackgroundPulido, M. F. (2020) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107732 · Cited by 15
Recent study, but not retrieval, of knowledge protects against learning errors
Mullet, H. G., Umanath, S., & Marsh, E. J. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0437-7 · Cited by 16
“…future encoding (e.g., Chan et al., 2009), it may heighten their curiosity about the correct answer, it may increase their attention to corrective feedback (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014), and/ or it may render the original memory trace malleable and therefore subject to updating (Nader et al., 2000).”
BackgroundLanguage Difficulty and Prior Learning Influence Foreign Vocabulary Acquisition
Hayakawa, S. L., Bartolotti, J., van den Berg, A., & Marian, V. (2019) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages5010002 · Cited by 20
Beyond hypercorrection: remembering corrective feedback for low-confidence errors
Griffiths, L. R., & Higham, P. A. (2017) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2017.1344249 · Cited by 14
“More recently, some research has shown that sometimes feedback provided to pure guesses can aid learning compared to reading (e.g., Kornell et al., 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
BackgroundLukešová, A., & Jennings, P. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2025.2612532 · Cited by 16
Wang, L., & Yang, J. (2023) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120001 · Cited by 14
“The awareness of memory errors and failures (Butler et al., 2008; Buzzell et al., 2017; Potts and Shanks, 2014) may enable them to effectively activate the salience network and the executive”
BackgroundSchema-based predictive eye movements support sequential memory encoding
Huang, J., Velarde, I., Ma, W. J., & Baldassano, C. A. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.82599 · Cited by 16
“Potts and Shanks, 2014 demonstrated a benefit even for minimal predictions when predictions are based on random guessing and are wrong almost all the time.”
BackgroundResultSelmeczy, D., Ghetti, S., Zheng, L. R., Porter, T., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2021) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101062 · Cited by 16
Impact of exercise format and repetition on learning verb–noun collocations
Ferguson, P., Siyanova‐Chanturia, A., & Leeming, P. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211038091 · Cited by 13
“However, in order for textbook exercises to be effective learning tools, they must cognitively engage students (e.g. Keating, 2008; Potts & Shanks, 2014), while also promoting L2 comprehension, learning, and retention.”
Prompting language learners to guess the meaning of idioms: do wrong guesses linger?
Wang, X., Boers, F., & Warren, P. (2022) · Language Awareness · doi:10.1080/09658416.2022.2153859 · Cited by 11
“A guessing or inferencing task can also pique learners’ curiosity, which will then make them attend more closely to the correct meaning when it is offered as feedback (e.g. Hays et al., 2013; Potts et al., 2019; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Zawadzka & Hanczakowski, 2019).”
BackgroundStrong, B., & Leeming, P. (2023) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3248 · Cited by 13
Pretesting Enhances Learning in the Classroom
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, E. L. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09805-6 · Cited by 13
Krishnan, S., Sellars, E., Wood, H., Bishop, D., & Watkins, K. E. (2018) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.171496 · Cited by 11
The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory.
Huff, M. J., Balota, D. A., & Hutchison, K. A. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000269 · Cited by 11
“…guessing experiments (e.g., Grimaldi & Karpicke, 2012; Hays et al., 2013; Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012; Knight et al., 2012; Kornell et al., 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Yan et al., 2014), information used to generate a guess also appears to show a memory benefit over interpolated restudy and…”
InfluentialThe pretesting effect thrives in the presence of competing information
Kliegl, O., Bartl, J., & Bäuml, K. T. (2023) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2023.2190568 · Cited by 10
“At first glance, the present finding that pretesting can shield against RI-induced forgetting also seems to align with an extension of attentional accounts of the prestesting effect (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014; Zawadzka & Hanczakowski, 2019).”
ResultDisdain to Acceptance: Future Teachers’ Conceptual Change Related to Data-Driven Decision Making
Dunn, K. E., Skutnik, A. L., Patti, C., & Sohn, B. (2019) · Action in Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/01626620.2019.1582116 · Cited by 9
“Metacognitive unawareness impedes learning whereas metacognitive awareness facilitates learning (Potts & Shanks, 2014); thus, the finding that the training, and perhaps the reflective questions that were analyzed for this study and are part of the curriculum, increased metacognitive awareness is…”
BackgroundKnowing Is Not Half the Battle: the Role of Actual Test Experience in the Forward Testing Effect
Choi, H. J., & Lee, H. S. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09518-0 · Cited by 13
You won’t guess that: On the limited benefits of guessing when learning a foreign language
Butowska, E., Hanczakowski, M., & Zawadzka, K. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01254-2 · Cited by 11
“Like Potts and Shanks (2014), they used rare English words with their common equivalents and Euskara-English pairs in their experiments, but included various test formats: in addition to simple recognition, they also used cued-recall and associative-recognition tests.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialHuff, M. J., Yates, T. J., & Balota, D. A. (2018) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1467929 · Cited by 11
“Our findings, particularly those showing the benefits of guessing, extend previous studies that have shown benefits of initial guessing on retention (e.g., Hays et al., 2013; Kornell et al., 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
Meaning‐Inferencing Versus Meaning‐Given Procedures: The Case of Idioms
Boers, F., Yu, X., & Wang, X. (2025) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12702 · Cited by 8
“Compared to random guesses (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014), hypotheses arrived at through inferencing are perhaps harder to separate in memory from the actual meaning of lexical items that were learned after the inferencing effort.”
InfluentialEffects of making errors in learning a foreign language
Guzmán-Muñoz, F. J. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2020.1711766 · Cited by 12
“Similarly, Potts and Shanks (2014) also found that lures selected during training were more likely to be selected again during testing.”
BackgroundCharbonnier, É., Vigouroux, S. L., Puechlong, C., Montalescot, L., Goncalves, A., Baussard, L., Gisclard, B., Philippe, A. G., & Lespiau, F. (2023) · INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing · doi:10.1177/00469580231159962 · Cited by 14
Response Format, Not Semantic Activation, Influences the Failed Retrieval Effect
Tanaka, S., Miyatani, M., & Iwaki, N. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00599 · Cited by 8
“, 2009; Kornell, 2014); word pairs of unfamiliar English words and their definitions or foreign vocabulary and their translations (Potts and Shanks, 2014); and trivia questions with multiple choice answers in children (Marsh et al.”
BackgroundMaraver, M. J., Lapa, A., Garcia‐Marques, L., Carneiro, P., & Raposo, A. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272427 · Cited by 11
“In the last two decades, an increasing number of studies have shown that generating errors, as long as followed by feedback, can enhance later memory for the correct response [3,8,9].”
BackgroundMethodPre-testing effects are target-specific and are not driven by a generalised state of curiosity
Hollins, T. J., Seabrooke, T., Inkster, A. B., Wills, A. J., & Mitchell, C. J. (2022) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2022.2153141 · Cited by 8
“While some have theorised that such states might explain the pre-testing e ff ect (e.g., Potts et al., 2019; Potts & Shanks, 2014), they have done so only with respect to memory of the corrective feedback itself and have not explored whether there is a wider bene fi t to learning after a guess.”
InfluentialDo hints make students become curious about boring content?
Shin, D. D., Kim, S., & Bong, M. (2024) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-023-10056-9 · Cited by 8
“Previous studies have demonstrated that encountering prediction errors, such as making confident error or uncertain correct guess, during knowledge acquisition enhances the retention of the correct answer (Butler et al., 2008; Potts & Shanks, 2014 ).”
InfluentialThe Influence of Guided Error-Based Learning on Motor Skills Self-Efficacy and Achievement
Chien, K.-P., & Chen, S. (2017) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2017.1341377 · Cited by 10
“A mistake followed by proper feedback leads to more accurate memories (Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012; Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
BackgroundGuessing can benefit memory for related word pairs even when feedback is delayed
Zawadzka, K., Zaborowska, O., Butowska, E., Piątkowski, K., & Hanczakowski, M. (2023) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-022-01385-0 · Cited by 8
“Second, the surprise account would argue that guesses serve as explicit predictions which, when negated by the correct response, result in a state of surprise, which in turn leads to increased attention to feedback, resulting in improved memory (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
BackgroundHa, H., & Lee, H. S. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09899-6 · Cited by 6
“…explanation is that because the retrieval practice + JOL group had to overtly retrieve the category name, they perhaps experienced more retrieval failure and, in turn, exerted more effort into their learning in the subsequent section (Cho et al., 2017; Potts & Shanks, 2014; Yang et al., 2017).”
A dimensional summation account of polymorphous category learning
Wills, A. J., Ellett, L., Milton, F., Croft, G., & Beesley, T. (2020) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-020-00409-6 · Cited by 6
Pretesting boosts item but not source memory
Seabrooke, T., Mitchell, C. J., & Hollins, T. J. (2021) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2021.1977328 · Cited by 6
“The word pairs were selected from those used by Potts and Shanks (2014) and Seabrooke, Hollins, et al. (2019).”
MethodResultInfluentialManeuvrier, A., & Westermann, H. (2020) · PRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality · doi:10.1162/pres_a_00359 · Cited by 8
“This association could be a little more complex in the context of learning, for which making errors and mistakes plays an important role on the learning process (Potts & Shanks, 2014), but this question is out the scope of this work.”
BackgroundPretesting effects on incidental L2 vocabulary learning through reading
Puimège, E., Caltabellotta, E., & Peters, E. (2025) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263125100910 · Cited by 8
“The study found that pretesting led to improved recognition of unfamiliar English and Euskara words, in line with Potts and Shanks ’ (2014) findings.”
InfluentialWang, X., Liu, X., Chen, L., Feng, K., Ye, Q., & Haoliang, Z. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11060101 · Cited by 6
On the Role of Generation Rules in Moderating the Beneficial Effects of Errorful Generation
Clark, C. M., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2021) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000442 · Cited by 6
The role of mediators for the pretesting effect
Bartl, J., Kliegl, O., & Bäuml, K. T. (2024) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2024.2323930 · Cited by 5
“…account explains the pretesting effect by assuming that pretesting enhances attentional encoding of the target item when it is revealed at the end of a pretest trial, thus promoting recall of the target item on a subsequent final test (e.g., Potts & Shanks, 2014; Zawadzka & Hanczakowski, 2019).”
BackgroundKeppenne, V., Hopman, E. W. M., & Jackson, C. N. (2021) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s014271642100014x · Cited by 6
Zhang, L., Yu, Y., Liu, Y., & Qu, K. (2022) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03678-8 · Cited by 4
“Thus, they could hold some unreasonable beliefs and think that continuous problem solving exercises can lead to deeper processing and stronger memory (Kang et al., 2009; Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
Memory updating after retrieval: when new information is false or correct
Carneiro, P., Lapa, A., & Finn, B. (2021) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2021.1968438 · Cited by 5
Retrieval practice transfer effects for multielement event triplets
Pickering, J. S., Henderson, L. M., & Horner, A. J. (2021) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.201456 · Cited by 5
Tormo, C. U., Stengers, H., & Deconinck, J. (2022) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2021-0158 · Cited by 4
Casademont, A. J., Gagné, N., & Castellanas, È. V. (2022) · Médiations et médiatisations · doi:10.52358/mm.vi12.288 · Cited by 4
Regaining access to marginal knowledge in a classroom setting
Butler, A. C., Black-Maier, A. C., Campbell, K., Marsh, E. J., & Persky, A. M. (2020) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3679 · Cited by 4
“…this finding, it corresponds well with recent research showing that making errors on tests can be beneficial to learning for a variety of reasons (Arnold & McDermott, 2013; Huelser & Metcalfe, 2012; Kornell, Klein, & Rawson, 2015; Little, Bjork, Bjork, &Angello, 2012; Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
ResultRishi, P., Nunn, K., & Rohter, S. V. (2024) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2024.2432022 · Cited by 3
“Errorless paradigms prioritize success in training (Baddeley & Wilson, 1994; Fillingham et al., 2003), while errorful designs prioritize independent response generation and effort (Potts & Shanks, 2014).”
Strong, B., & Leeming, P. (2024) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688241239058 · Cited by 3
“Yet , a growing body of evidence shows that incorrect guessing can improve memory for second-language vocabulary items compared to errorless learning (Potts & Shanks, 2014; Potts et al., 2019; Seabrooke et al., 2019).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 644-667
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2032355206
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- discovery.ucl.ac.uk
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H036237/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- generation effect, corrective feedback, memory encoding, vocabulary acquisition, foreign language vocabulary, metalinguistic awareness, perceived difficulty, metacognition
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cues, Educational Measurement, Feedback, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Mental Recall, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
