The main problem of this study was to evaluate the effect of immediate awareness of success and failure upon the results obtained from an objective examination. The general effect of im mediate awareness of success and failure might be assumed: (l) to produce no ap preciable modification in results; (2) to cause increased effort, attention, critical observation and thereby improve ment; (5) to prove discouraging and there fore detrimental. A further problem was concerned with the retention of such learning as was made possible by the awareness of success and failure in com parison with gains made from test to test by the control group, which group had no ? objective criterion of success and fail ure. A third problem consisted of an evaluation of a proposed testing tech nique.1 This technique consists of a self-scoring answer sheet which can be adapted to the various kinds of objec tive test items, e.g., true-false, mul tiple choice, matching, etc.; or it may be adjusted to provide self-scoring les son assignments which could be incorpor ated in syllabus workbooks. For the present study, the test items and answer sheet were combined and printed. The test contained true-false columns in the left hand margin except that a device now in the patent office, which cannot therefore be described in detail, allowed the stu dent to determine immediately upon his answering of a question whether or not he had answered it correctly> The experimental and control groups were selected at random from two classes in elementary psychology at Pur due University. Results from the Thur stone Psychological Examination were used to check the comparability of these groups. The experimental group contained forty-five and the control group forty two students. In the lasc retest, the numbers of students within the two groups were reduced unavoidably to twenty and twenty-four respectively. The test items were composed of fifty true-false state ! m nts upon the problem of learning. The self-scoring test was given to the exper imental group. The control group was given the same test in the usual mimeo graphed form. The initial test was giv en to both groups one week following the regular course examination which covered m terials upon the topic of learning. The first retest followed the initial test three days later. The second retest came approximately two weeks later. The third retest was given fifteen weeks following the initial test. In all of the retests, both groups were given mimeographed forms of the test. Th items within each of the retest forms we e presented in a new sequence. The ini tial test and the first retest were unan nounced. The second retest was given dur ing the final examination period. The third retest came during the second se mester and was announced. In no instance, however, when the tests were announced, did the students anticipate being tested again over the same items. The influence of specific preparation must be assumed as a factor in the results of the second and third retests* Such influence in the initial test cannot be assumed, and it wo ld appear to have been negligible in the first retest.