The Testing Effect

Testing is a controversial subject. But, in spite of the controversy, kids who attend school are routinely tested and retested. They are quizzed, assessed, examined, graded and ranked in every grade and every subject. Given our cultural obsession with testing, it's almost inconceivable for teachers or administrators to think of education without also thinking of testing. It seems inescapable.

How did we ever become convinced that testing is the best way to ensure that learning takes place?

As a home educator, the idea of testing was foreign to me. I raised my kids from birth to age six without ever testing them, yet they learned to walk, talk, read, sing, dance, knit, bake, sew, write, and more. How is it possible that they could have mastered so many things without being tested on them? I don't know. They were curious; they learned. I tried not to interfere too much.


I suppose I could have started administering tests to my kids as they got older, as convention dictates. However, as a practical matter, my time was limited: I thought, why spend hours devising quizzes and exams when I could be doing more interesting things with my children? Together, we worked on solving real problems and answering our own questions. What happens when I mix yeast with warm water and honey? Where does this road lead? Why are zebras striped? Once a problem was solved or a question was answered, we moved on.

If I had insisted on testing them every step of the way, I think they might have become unnecessarily self-conscious about what they did or didn't know. The flow of learning would have been interrupted, and for what? What would we have learned from the testing? That they were capable of doing some things but not others? Would that information have been helpful—or harmful? Some argue that it's essential to know whether or not a child is "on track," but what does it really mean when we say a child is "behind" in some areas or "ahead" in others? How do we know? Perhaps they are simply right on schedule for their own developmental timetables.

All I knew was that I had no need to rank or grade my own kids, so most of the time I didn't bother with testing. So, how did I know my children were learning? I kept detailed records of what they were doing, provided extra help when they were struggling with something, and responded to their requests for more challenging material. And, in response to my husband's requests and to satisfy state evaluation requirements, I asked them to endure a yearly standardized test, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) or the California Achievement Test (a predecessor to the TerraNova and now out of print). Although they did very well on the tests, the questions—which they viewed as irrelevant and pointless—merely frustrated and annoyed them.

I learned more about their progress by talking to them than I ever did from their test scores.

It is only recently that I have begun to consider the potential benefits of testing. When it comes to high-stakes standardized testing, I still agree with Alfie Kohn ("Standardized Testing and Its Victims") and others ("The Case Against High Stakes Testing"). However, I can also see how some types of tests can be used by students as learning tools—if they are used judiciously. As a home educator, I wish I had known about the following research studies sooner.

In "Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits" (The New York Times, Sep. 6, 2010), Benedict Carey writes that "cognitive scientists see testing itself — or practice tests and quizzes — as a powerful tool of learning, rather than merely assessment. The process of retrieving an idea is not like pulling a book from a shelf; it seems to fundamentally alter the way the information is subsequently stored, making it far more accessible in the future." In other words, when you have to respond to a difficult test question about something you've studied, your brain works to retrieve that information, and "the more mental sweat it takes to dig it out, the more securely it will be subsequently anchored [for future reference]." The cognitive scientists to which Carey refers are Henry Roediger and Jeffrey Karpicke, who reported their research findings in "Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention," (Psychological Science, 2006).

"Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later retention, a phenomenon known as the testing effect." —Roediger and Karpicke

Similarly, Karl Szpunar and Daniel Schacter of the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching (HILT) have found that using formative assessments during online lecture courses promotes learning. (see their video, "Test-Enhanced Learning," or refer to Peter Reuell's Harvard Gazette article about their work). As they report in "Interpolated Memory Tests Reduce Mind Wandering and Improve Learning of Online Lectures"(PNAS, Feb. 18, 2013):

" . . . the simple act of interpolating online lectures with memory tests can help students sustain attention to lecture content in a manner that discourages task-irrelevant mind wandering activities, encourages task-relevant note-taking activities, and improves learning." 

Thinkwell and EdX courses already use this type of approach—their online courses alternate short video lecture segments with brief assessments designed to provide the student with immediate feedback. Not surprisingly, these are my son's favorite online course providers.