Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extending the testing effect to self-regulated learning

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In addition to serving summative assessment purposes, testing has turned out to be a powerful learning tool. However, while the beneficial effect of testing on learning performances has been confirmed in a large body of literature, the question of exactly how testing influences cognitive and metacognitive processes remains unclear. We therefore set out to investigate the effect of testing on self-regulated learning (SRL) processes. We hypothesized that by recalibrating metacognitive monitoring, regular practice testing can trigger efficient SRL processes and, in turn, foster learning. To test this hypothesis, we exposed first-year undergraduates to a complex neurology module. Participants were randomly assigned to either the practice testing group or a control group. The testing group underwent multiple practice tests during the neurology module, whereas the control group only underwent the multiple practice tests after the course. To assess the impact of practice testing on SRL processes, we combined a think aloud protocol with a metacognitive monitoring self-report measure. Results showed that, compared with controls, participants in the practice testing group were significantly less overconfident in their ability to recall recently learned information and performed better on a posttest questionnaire. Furthermore, mediation analyses confirmed that enhanced learning performance was explained by the use of efficient SRL processes. Therefore, these results allow us to extend the testing effect to SRL, and empirically underscore the central role of monitoring in SRL. Contributions to the fields of practice testing and SRL are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Free recall enhances subsequent learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 507–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2014). Multimedia learning of metacognitive strategies. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 647–672). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004a). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.

  • Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004b). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87–111.

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: a metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 566–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2013). Scaffolding hypermedia learning through metacognitive prompts. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 171–186). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 161–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., Sonnenberg, C., Mengelkamp, C., & Pieger, E. (2015). Short- and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, L. K., Bagsby, P. G., Grawitch, M. J., & Buerck, J. P. (2011). Facilitating self-regulated learning with technology: evidence for student motivation and exam improvement. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 303–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2013). Metacognitive monitoring in university classes: anticipating a graded vs. a pass-fail test affects monitoring accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 8(2), 121–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binbaşaran-Tüysüzoğlu, B., & Greene, J. A. (2015). An investigation of the role of contingent metacognitive behavior in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, A. B. H., Kok, E. M., Lobbestael, J., & de Grip, A. (2016). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning, 1–23.

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). A multidimensional investigation of deep-level and surface-level processing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 213–244.

  • Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: a brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four cornerstones of calibration research: why understanding students’ judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutke, S., Barenberg, J., & Leopold, C. (2010). Learning from text: knowing the test format enhanced metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. R. Hoffman, & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(2), 119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007a). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007b). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., & Robertson, J. (2010). Fostering historical knowledge and thinking skills using hypermedia learning environments: the role of self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 230–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Costa, L.-J., & Dellinger, K. (2011). Analysis of self-regulated learning processing using statistical models for count data. Metacognition and Learning, 6(3), 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Dellinger, K. R., Tüysüzoğlu, B. B., & Costa, L.-J. (2013). A two-tiered approach to analyzing self-regulated learning data to inform the design of hypermedia learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 117–128). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., Jackson, W. P., Caprino, A. M., Oswald, C., & McVea, M. (2015). Domain-specificity of self-regulated learning processing in science and history. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. R. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: the critical role of monitoring. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, A. P., & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of strategy training and incentives on students’ performance, confidence, and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 386–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., & Webster, E. A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2013). Calibration and confidence: where to next? Learning and Instruction, 24, 62–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, J. D., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izawa, C. (1971). The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8(2), 200–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006a). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 959–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006b). Mending metacognitive illusions: a comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1133–1145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Ma’ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 478–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyle, K. B., & Crawford, N. A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992). Role of practice tests in the accuracy of test predictions on text material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C. (2014). Setting the stage for the metacognition during hypermedia learning: what motivation constructs matter? Computers & Education, 70, 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: the impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1686–1706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and prior domain knowledge: to what extent does monitoring mediate their relationship with hypermedia learning? Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474.

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastötter, B., & Bauml, K.-H. T. (2014). Retrieval practice enhances new learning: the forward effect of testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, E. G., & Lajoie, S. P. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: the cognitive and metacognitive activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 213–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: the nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2007). Cognitive strategies. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why is test-restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 737–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A. (2015). The status of the testing effect for complex materials: still a winner. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 327–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 1–36). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2010). Measuring self-regulation in computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 258–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1392–1399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: the testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Assessing metacognitive skills in computerized learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 157–168). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V., Prins, F. J., & Verheij, J. (2003). Learning styles: self-reports versus thinking-aloud measures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vössing, J., & Stamov-Roßnagel, C. (2016). Boosting metacomprehension accuracy in computer-supported learning: the role of judgment task and judgment scope. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., & Hall, V. C. (1989). Effects of examples and embedded questions on the accuracy of comprehension self-assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Grasser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and application (pp. 297–314). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). nStudy: tracing and supporting self-regulated learning in the internet. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 293–308). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 551–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2008). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. J. Hacker & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 259–277). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2011). The interim test effect: testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1140–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 12–39). Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Martin Ragot for his assistance with data coding. The authors would also like to thank Corentin Gonthier, Nicolas Martin and reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRPCC, University of Rennes-II Haute Bretagne, 1 Place du Recteur Henri-Le-Moal, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France

    Jonathan Fernandez & Eric Jamet

Authors
  1. Jonathan Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Jamet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Fernandez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Coding scheme (adaptation of the scheme developed by Azevedo and Cromley 2004; Greene and Azevedo 2009) applied to SRL behaviors. Microlevel processes, each with an accompanying description and example, are grouped under their respective macrolevel SRL processes.
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandez, J., Jamet, E. Extending the testing effect to self-regulated learning. Metacognition Learning 12, 131–156 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9163-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9163-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation