Sorry, Am I Intruding? Comparing Performance and Intrusion Rates for Pretested and Posttested Information

Pretesting and posttesting have long been implemented in classrooms as methods of testing and improving learning. Prior research has been mixed on the relative benefits of pretesting versus posttesting, with some studies finding pretesting to be more beneficial, and others finding posttesting to be more beneficial. True/False testing is a particularly easy-to-implement method and is regularly used in classrooms. However, relatively little is known about how these tests affect learning. Three experiments address the effects of true/false pre- and posttests on learning correct information and intrusion rates of false information. We find consistent benefits of both pretesting and posttesting but significantly higher intrusion rates for posttesting relative to pretesting, a finding that persisted despite inclusion of simple True/False feedback (Experiment 2) and substantive feedback (Experiment 3). Although the difference between pretesting and posttesting intrusion rates was still significant with the addition of substantive feedback, overall intrusion rates were greatly reduced.