What if everything we know about testing is backwards? Research shows that taking a test before learning the material, and getting answers wrong, can dramatically improve retention. This counterintuitive finding challenges how we design corporate training programs.
Picture this: you're designing a compliance training program. Your instinct says to present the material first, then test comprehension afterward. That's how it's always been done: learn, then test. Test what you've learned. It's the natural order of things.
But what if that instinct is completely wrong?
What if the most effective way to help employees retain critical information is to test them before they've learned anything, when they're guaranteed to get answers wrong?
It sounds absurd. Yet research shows this "pre-testing effect" is one of the most powerful and underutilized learning strategies available to L&D professionals.
We'll walk through your specific challenges and show you how training can actually stick year-round.
In 2009, researchers Kornell, Hays, and Bjork (opens in new tab) published a groundbreaking study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. They gave participants word pairs to learn in different conditions. One group studied the pairs normally. Another group was first tested on the pairs before seeing them, they had to guess the answers with no prior exposure to the material.
The results were striking: participants who took the test first (and necessarily failed it) remembered significantly more than those who simply studied the material. Even though they got the initial answers wrong, the act of attempting to retrieve information that wasn't there yet created a powerful learning effect.
This wasn't a fluke. Subsequent research by Richland, Kornell, and Kao (2009) (opens in new tab) found similar effects. When students were pre-tested on material they hadn't learned, they outperformed peers who spent the same amount of time studying. The pre-test group remembered 10% more on the final test, a significant gain in educational terms.
But here's what makes this truly counterintuitive: the benefit persisted even when learners received no feedback on their wrong pre-test answers. Simply the act of generating an incorrect answer seemed to prime the brain for learning.
This flies in the face of everything we've been told about learning. We've built entire training philosophies around preventing errors, ensuring smooth learning experiences, and building confidence through success. Yet the pre-testing effect suggests that productive failure might be more valuable than comfortable correctness.
So what's happening in the brain?
According to research by Huelser and Metcalfe (2012) (opens in new tab), pre-testing creates what cognitive scientists call "semantic activation." When you attempt to answer a question, even incorrectly, you activate related concepts in your memory. This creates hooks that make correct information easier to encode.
Think of it like preparing soil before planting. The failed retrieval attempt loosens the cognitive ground, making it receptive to new information.
Dr. Elizabeth Bjork (opens in new tab), one of the leading researchers in this field, describes it as creating a "search set" in memory. When you try to recall something you don't know, your brain searches through related concepts and associations. When the correct answer arrives moments later, it slots into this activated network of ideas, making the connection stronger and more memorable.
The effect is even more pronounced when the wrong answer is close but not quite right. If you guess "Sydney" for Australia's capital, you'll remember "Canberra" far better than if you'd simply been told. The near-miss creates cognitive tension that demands resolution.
Here's another uncomfortable truth: learner confidence is a terrible predictor of actual learning.
Research by Dunning and Kruger (opens in new tab) famously showed that low-ability individuals consistently overestimate their competence, while high-ability individuals tend to underestimate theirs. This creates a dangerous situation in corporate training: employees who feel most confident after a course may have learned the least, while those who feel challenged and uncertain may have learned the most.
Pre-testing exposes this illusion of knowledge. It forces learners to confront what they don't know before they encounter the material. This moment of productive struggle, of realizing "I thought I knew this, but I don't," is psychologically uncomfortable but pedagogically powerful.
In a study by Metcalfe (2017) (opens in new tab), learners who experienced high confidence errors (questions they got wrong despite feeling confident) showed the strongest learning gains when given corrective feedback. The surprise of being wrong when they expected to be right created what researchers call a "hypercorrection effect," an enhanced memory for the correct information.
This has profound implications for how we design training. Instead of building confidence through easy wins, we might serve learners better by strategically exposing their knowledge gaps early in the learning process.
So how do you actually apply the pre-testing effect without demoralizing your learners or creating a frustrating experience?
Start with diagnostic questions. Before launching into your compliance training, onboarding program, or product knowledge course, present three to five challenging questions about the material to come. Frame these explicitly as "What do you already know?" or "Let's see where you stand" rather than as high-stakes assessments. The goal is curiosity, not evaluation.
Make it psychologically safe. The pre-testing effect only works if learners are willing to engage with the questions seriously. If they feel judged or threatened by getting answers wrong, they'll disengage. Emphasize that wrong answers are expected, valuable, and part of the learning process. Consider making pre-tests anonymous or keeping results private to the learner.
Follow up quickly. The magic of pre-testing happens when the correct information follows shortly after the failed retrieval attempt. Don't leave learners hanging for days. Present the pre-test, then immediately move into the learning content that addresses those questions. The activated cognitive structures are primed and ready.
Design thoughtful distractors. Multiple-choice pre-test questions are particularly effective when the wrong answers are plausible. This forces learners to think deeply about the material and makes the eventual correct answer more memorable. Avoid obviously wrong options that allow learners to guess correctly without genuine thought.
Combine with spaced repetition. The pre-testing effect compounds beautifully with other evidence-based practices. After the initial pre-test and learning, use spaced repetition to return to the material at increasing intervals. Each retrieval practice session strengthens the memory trace initially created by the pre-test.
Track the right metrics. Stop measuring training success solely by confidence ratings or immediate post-training scores. These often correlate poorly with long-term retention and on-the-job application. Instead, measure performance weeks or months after training, when the real test of learning occurs.
The pre-testing effect challenges one of our deepest assumptions about learning: that we should minimize errors and maximize success. But perhaps we've been too protective of our learners.
Cognitive science increasingly suggests that struggle, difficulty, and even failure, when properly structured and supported, create deeper, more durable learning than smooth, easy experiences. Researchers call these "desirable difficulties (opens in new tab)": challenges that feel harder in the moment but produce superior long-term retention and transfer.
Pre-testing is a perfect example. It feels wrong to test people on material they haven't learned. It goes against our instincts as trainers and educators. Learners will get answers wrong. Yet this temporary discomfort produces lasting benefits.
We need to get more comfortable with productive failure. Instead of designing effortless training, create learning journeys that challenge, surprise, and frustrate learners for deeper retention.
This doesn't mean making training needlessly difficult or demoralizing. It means strategically introducing challenges, like pre-testing, that leverage our cognitive architecture rather than working against it.
The next time you sit down to design a training program, resist the urge to lead with content. Instead, start with questions. Challenge your learners before you teach them. Let them struggle, guess, and get things wrong.
It will feel uncomfortable. You might worry about engagement or satisfaction scores. But remember: the goal isn't to make learners feel good in the moment. The goal is to help them remember critical information weeks, months, or years later when it actually matters.
The research is clear: testing before learning works. The question is whether we're brave enough to put it into practice.
In corporate learning, 80% of knowledge fades within a week and compliance failures carry real consequences. We can't rely on comfortable training that produces forgettable results.
It's time to put testing first--literally.
Kornell, Hays, and Bjork (2009) - Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology View study (opens in new tab)
Richland, Kornell, and Kao (2009) - The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology View study (opens in new tab)
Huelser and Metcalfe (2012) - Making related errors facilitates learning but learners do not know it, Memory and Cognition View study (opens in new tab)
Dunning and Kruger (1999) - Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology View study (opens in new tab)
Bjork and Bjork (2011) - Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning, Psychology and the Real World View research (opens in new tab)
Metcalfe (2017) - Learning from errors, Annual Review of Psychology View study (opens in new tab)
Want to implement evidence-based learning strategies like pre-testing in your organization? Drillster's adaptive learning platform combines pre-assessment, retrieval practice, and spaced repetition to create training programs that actually stick.
Subscribe and we will send you more like this from time to time. No spam, ever. Just thoughtful reads on the science of learning and how it meets critical business needs.
