To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test

[groovedaddy]

Taking a test is not just a passive mechanism for assessing how much people know, according to new research. It actually helps people learn, and it works better than a number of other studying techniques.

The research, published online Thursday in the journal Science, found that students who read a passage, then took a test asking them to recall what they had read, retained about 50 percent more of the information a week later than students who used two other methods.

One of those methods — repeatedly studying the material — is familiar to legions of students who cram before exams. The other — having students draw detailed diagrams documenting what they are learning — is prized by many teachers because it forces students to make connections among facts.

These other methods not only are popular, the researchers reported; they also seem to give students the illusion that they know material better than they do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/science/21memory.html?ref=science

[patrice]

1. I agree with the condition that writing, INDEPENDENT writing, further supports the learning.nt

[enlightenment]

2. I found that rewriting my class notes - and

then writing them again, from memory, was pretty effective. I suppose that's a form of self-testing. I recommend it to my students, but find that many are unwilling to put that much time into it. Particularly since I suggest they hand write, rather than type.

Still and all, retaining 'facts' is only one part of the process; understanding they 'why' is more relevant (for my field, anyway).

[FBaggins]

3. Yep... and it's the questions that you get wrong that you learn the most from...

...assuming that you have some form of feedback (the quicker the better) that not only reinforces the right answer, but explains why it's correct.

It should be noted that this effect isn't as pronounced in every subject area. Lab work (or good simulation) is better in many of the sciences, and immersion is better for foreign languages (though I suppose that you could call that "ongoing testing/feedback"). I would also point out that the "take a test" factor is less valuable when that test is scored and contributes significantly to the measurement of the student's success (IOW, the course grade).

For online courses, we do this by including lots of "check your understanding" questions throughout the course (we'll even use those CYU questions to drive how much additional tutorial content is needed for this learner in this content area). These interactions are entirely un-scored and the learner knows it (though we track them as part of our internal analysis of the effectiveness of our learning events). The scored assessment (where necessary) is separate.

[Hannah Bell]

4. In fact, the research wasn't about tests at all.

A research study published last week by Science Magazine is drawing a bit of attention. The Flypaper fellows are talking about it, the NY Times wrote about it (via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), and the Northwest Evaluation Association tweeted about it...All three give the impression that taking a test helps with learning. It's fair to say the assumption is that we're talking about standardized variety, or some kind of hybrid multiple choice and extended response format.

Not so. Not even close.

The "test" we're talking about here is simply writing down everything you remembered after reading a for a given amount of time (I believe it was 45 minutes in the study). Free-recall. No multiple choice. No grading of the material. That was a more effective way of studying than putting together a concept map. That's what the study really looked at.

GOOD picked up on this. So did Sherman Dorn.

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/01/whhhhhhhaaattt-did-read-it.html