In this post, Marcin Lewandowski discusses the importance of testing and what it can offer beyond identifying gaps in learners’ understanding.
In one of my previous posts I wrote about how weekly grammar and vocabulary tests contributed to an overall improvement in learners’ attainment level in terms of their knowledge in these areas compared to learners who did not receive the tests.
I argued that weekly tests provided learners with a stimulus powerful enough to regulate their behaviour and a reason to revise the material even when they may have felt like doing something else – and that they proved to be more effective than homework activities in extending learning beyond the classroom. I also showed that contrary to a common concern, tests can be motivating and, in the case of my students, eagerly anticipated (if not enjoyable!).
There’s more…
As teachers, we also know that testing enables us to identify gaps in learners’ understanding and adapt our instruction to fill them. It tells learners what they know and what they don’t know so they can focus on the areas where they’re weak.
However, it seems that testing has a lot more to offer. In his recent book ‘Make It Stick’, author Peter C. Brown draws on cognitive psychology to offer techniques to make learners more productive and effective. Many of the techniques mentioned in the book employ good old testing as a way of helping learners to retain information through the process of retrieval of information, which strengthens neural connections responsible for memory formation.
It is no surprise then that Brown should argue that ‘[t]esting shouldn’t be perceived as a dipstick to measure learning but as a way of practising retrieval of learning from memory – a tool for learning.’
Testing = retrieval practice
Retrieval of learning from memory! Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? After all, this is precisely what learners have to do in order to answer questions – they need to retrieve information from memory. Where else are they going to retrieve it from? A book? It’s a test!
Okay, so there is nothing particularly revelatory about this concept, except, how often do we think of testing as a way to practise memory? As mentioned above, as teachers we are more likely to use tests to see how much our students know, to check their progress, or – if we want to be self critical – how effective our teaching has been. Whatever the reason for testing, we will be passing a judgement. But we rarely think of testing as a tool for learning as described by Brown.
And yet this shift in perception allows us to view testing in a new light, which opens new possibilities in the way we use tests, with consequences for both us, the teachers, and our students. It helps to reassure the teachers for whom the word ‘testing’ may be a dirty word with lots of negative connotations; teachers who worry about there being too much testing, finally those who worry about teaching to the test. It will also go some way towards getting the learners’ ‘buy-in’. Seen in this way, testing, especially when it’s low stake, is a lot less threatening and a lot less negatively loaded. It is a useful and helpful tool to practise memory – a tool for retrieval practice.
Before or after?
Brown describes several ways in which testing can be used to enhance take up. For example, taking a simple low stake quiz with feedback after studying new material will produce better learning and remembering than rereading this information several times. This is because retrieval forced by testing interrupts forgetting and thus strengthens the memory. In fact, the more effortful the retrieval [i.e. the harder the test] the stronger the benefit (Brown, 2015). So a simple five minute quiz at the end of the session will not only show you how effective the session was but also reinforce all the learning that took place during the lesson.
But testing doesn’t have to be done after teaching, sometimes giving learners a test before they’ve had an opportunity to learn the new material may be equally effective. This kind of pre-testing focuses learners’ attention on key material, i.e. the things we want our learners to remember by the end of the session. However, in the absence of prior knowledge, learners will have to guess the answers and, inevitably, will get some of them wrong.
And this is precisely what we’re after. Benedict Carey, the author of How We Learn suggests that the act of guessing engages your mind in a different more demanding way than straight memorization does, deepening the imprint of the correct answers (Carey, 2015). On some kinds of tests, e.g. multiple-choice, we learn from answering incorrectly – especially when the correct answers are given soon afterwards. Pre-tests, therefore, seem to adjust our thinking in some way to the kind of material we need to know which, in turn, leads to better retention of information.
Brown, P.C. & Roediger, H.L. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.
Carey, B. (2015). How We Learn: Throw out the rule book and unlock your brain’s potential. Pan Books.
Make sure to check out part two of this series, where Marcin further discusses the benefits of testing and useful methods to consider.