Episodic Memory
Teaching Expectancy Task
Also called: learning by teaching, protégé effect, expecting to teach, preparing to teach
Measure how expecting to teach changes learning. Participants study a passage expecting to teach it or expecting a test, then recall it and answer questions; recall, its organization and accuracy are scored.
9-12 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 45
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
Life in a honeybee colony
A forager that finds good flowers tells the others with a dance.
What does the waggle dance tell other bees?
What it measures
Measures how expecting to teach changes learning. Participants study a short passage expecting to teach it to another participant or expecting a test, then type what they remember and answer questions. No one is taught, and the last screen says so.
Constructs
- Learning by teaching
- Encoding strategies
- Free recall
- Organization in memory
Research uses
- Learning research
- Educational psychology
- Memory research
How the paradigm works
Expecting to teach changes how people study: learners who expect to teach a passage to someone else recall more of it, recall it in a better organized way and answer more questions about it than learners who expect a test. Participants learn before reading that they will teach a short passage on honeybee colonies to another participant, who will then be tested, or that they will take a test. The passage stays on screen for a set time with a visible timer and cannot be ended early, so both groups study equally long; notes are not allowed. True-or-false sums fill a short delay. The teaching group then hears of a change of plan: no one will be taught. Everyone types the key words they remember, one at a time, and answers ten three-choice questions, one on the main point and one on a detail of each paragraph. The last screen says that no one is taught and why.
Scores
- Key Facts Recalled%
- Percentage of the passage's 20 key facts named in the typed recall.
- Higher means more recalled
- Facts Recalledcount
- Key facts named in the typed recall, each counted once.
- Higher means more recalled
- Recall Organizationscore
- Adjusted ratio of clustering of the recalled facts by paragraph, in recall order: 1 when facts from each paragraph are recalled together, 0 at chance. Null with too few facts to define it.
- Higher means more organized
- Facts per Minutecorrect/min
- Key facts recalled per minute of recall time.
- Higher means more efficient
- Questions Correct%
- Percentage of the recorded questions answered correctly. Missing answers count as wrong.
- Higher means more correct
- Main Points Correct%
- Accuracy on the questions about each paragraph's main point.
- Higher means more correct
- Details Correct%
- Accuracy on the questions about a detail of each paragraph.
- Higher means more correct
- Expected to Teach0/1
- 1 when the session expected to teach, 0 when it expected a test. The random setting saves its draw.
- Compare groups
- Questions Recordedcount
- Unique questions from the scored run.
- 10 standard
- Entries Typedcount
- Non-empty entries in the typed recall.
- Informational
- Other Entriescount
- Typed words that name no key fact of the passage.
- Informational
- Repeatscount
- Typed words naming a key fact already recalled.
- Informational
- Paste Attemptscount
- Attempts to paste text into the recall, which are blocked.
- 0 expected
- Recall Timeseconds
- Time spent on the typed recall.
- Informational
- Median Answer Timems
- Median answer time on the questions, excluding times under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Study Timeseconds
- Time the passage stayed on screen, as set by the study.
- 180 standard
- Earlier Sessionscount
- Earlier sessions of this test by the same participant; the expectation works only the first time.
- 0 expected
Use and evidence
45 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 67% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 448 of 670 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 18 |
| 2024 | 6 |
| 2023 | 6 |
| 2022 | 7 |
| 2021 | 8 |
| 2020 | 4 |
| 2019 | 9 |
| 2018 | 9 |
| 2017 | 3 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 8 |
| 2014 | 3 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 1 |
| 2011 | 1 |
| 2010 | 3 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 2 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 1
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Passage
- 1 original passage on honeybee colonies, 5 paragraphs in each of 8 languages. Each fact was checked against a public source.
- Expectation
- Before reading, participants learn that they will teach the passage to another participant, who will then be tested, or that they will take a test. By default the seed draws one of the two for each session, so one study holds both groups.
- Study
- The passage stays on screen for 3 minutes by default, with a visible timer, and cannot be ended early, so both expectations study equally long. A setting allows 1 to 10 minutes.
- Delay
- 60 seconds of true-or-false sums by default, from 0 to 10 minutes. The teaching group then hears of a change of plan: no one will be taught.
- Recall
- Up to 5 minutes of typed recall, one key word or number at a time, scored against the passage's 20 key facts in the session's language.
- Questions
- 10 questions with 3 answers each: 1 on the main point and 1 on a detail of each paragraph. No feedback.
- Scores
- Key facts recalled, recall organization by paragraph (adjusted ratio of clustering), facts recalled per minute, and question accuracy on main points and details. Each session saves its expectation, so groups compare directly.
- Last screen
- Says that no one is taught and why some people were told they would teach.
The passage and questions are our own. The expectation works only once, so each person takes the task once. Scores support research and do not diagnose. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: teaching_expectancy_question from the run with the most of them, with that run's teaching_expectancy_recall row. Typed recall has no chance level; the questions have three answers, so one-third chance. Accuracy significantly below chance invalidates, and one answer position on 90% of questions invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. With at least four answers, half or more under 200 ms invalidate. An empty recall, more entries naming no key fact than facts recalled (with at least 6 of them), blocked paste attempts and an earlier session of this test are flagged; fewer than all questions are flagged, and fewer than half invalidate. A hidden tab is flagged.
Why these rules
Every question has one answer stated in the passage, and seeded answer positions separate knowledge from button preference. Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. An empty recall can be a real result, so it is flagged rather than invalid. Expecting to teach changes how a passage is studied only while the expectation is believed, so a second session no longer measures it. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Expectation | Random for each session (standard) | Random for each session (standard), Teach, Test |
| Study time (seconds) | 180 | 60 to 600 |
| Delay before the test (seconds) | 60 | 0 to 600 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Teaching Expectancy Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Bargh JA, Schul Y, 1980; Nestojko JF, Bui DC, Kornell N, Bjork EL, 2014), with the standard settings (expectation: Random for each session; study time (seconds): 180; delay before the test (seconds): 60). The main score was key facts recalled (percentage of the passage's 20 key facts named in the typed recall).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593Participants told before reading that they would teach a passage to another student did better on later tests than those told to study for a test.
- Nestojko, J. F., Bui, D. C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E. L. (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition, 42(7), 1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0416-zEqual study time, a delay, typed free recall scored by idea units, recall organization by paragraph and questions on main points and details. No one was taught.
- Roenker, D. L., Thompson, C. P., & Brown, S. C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031355The adjusted ratio of clustering, used here with the passage's paragraphs as categories.
Source papers
- Nestojko, Bui, Kornell and Bjork (2014): teaching and test expectations compared on recall and questions.Paradigm source, Adults who read the session language
Questions
How long does the Teaching Expectancy Task take?
About 9 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Key Facts Recalled, Facts Recalled, Recall Organization, Facts per Minute, Questions Correct, Main Points Correct, Details Correct, Expected to Teach, Questions Recorded, Entries Typed, Other Entries, Repeats, Paste Attempts, Recall Time, Median Answer Time, Study Time and Earlier Sessions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Teaching Expectancy Task used in research?
45 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 67% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 448 of 670 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Teaching Expectancy Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Expectation (Random for each session (standard), Teach, Test), study time (seconds) (60 to 600) and delay before the test (seconds) (0 to 600). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.