tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post6833490046059569289..comments2024-03-14T04:16:20.472-07:00Comments on In Socrates' Wake: Testing, testing, 123Michael Cholbihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02012523929044363216noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-78571519672285928002011-02-03T11:11:43.639-08:002011-02-03T11:11:43.639-08:00Interesting point, Michael. It hadn't thought ...Interesting point, Michael. It hadn't thought about the act of writing about the material or taking a test as providing feedback about how well you know the material. I suppose, though, that it can only tell you what you know you don't know. If you are confident in a false belief, the test will appear easy to you. <br /><br />To be Rumsfeldian about it, an ungraded test can reveal known-unknowns, but it can't distinguish between known-knowns and unknown-unknowns. (What about unknown-knowns? I guess the test could reveal them, too, even if that category is unknown to Rumsfeld.)david morrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17628941227584383772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-59530286993335223242011-01-26T14:24:10.840-08:002011-01-26T14:24:10.840-08:00David, you raise some good points. What I had in m...David, you raise some good points. What I had in mind by "feedback" was not necessarily <i>instructor</i> feedback but simply information about one's own performance. And tests can give you that, since you will experience questions as more or less difficult, etc. Reading the material again and again might do that, but my guess is that it won't correct fundamental misunderstandings that stand in the way of student learning. But I think I agree that 'taking tests is better than studying' is not a conclusion we can easily draw from these studies without a lot more detail (and probably more studies!).Michael Cholbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02012523929044363216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-69819587214683823882011-01-26T06:42:12.243-08:002011-01-26T06:42:12.243-08:00There's a nice set of letters to the editor ab...There's a nice set of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/opinion/l26test.html?_r=1&hpw" rel="nofollow">letters to the editor about this article</a> on the <i>Times</i>' web site.david morrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17628941227584383772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-31450272175062592362011-01-25T20:56:21.914-08:002011-01-25T20:56:21.914-08:00I had the same reaction to this article that Chris...I had the same reaction to this article that Chris did. Based on the <i>Times</i> article, it sounds to me like students in the "study" condition just read and re-read the material, while students in the "testing" condition wrote essays on the material without having the material in front of them. I don't see why this is about testing at all, as opposed to different ways of studying.<br /><br />In particular, I don't see any evidence that the students who "took the test" got feedback on the test. So, I don't think <i>that's</i> why the "testers" did better.<br /><br />My wife, though, had the same question that Michael did: Testing may have helped students remember more, but which method actually helped students <i>learn</i> more (and more deeply)?<br /><br />Anyway, what does this tell us about teaching? Somewhere (possibly on this blog) I remember hearing about someone who has students write a five-minute summary of the day's lecture at the end of class, without looking at their notes. The instructors collects the summaries and scans a few of them to see what students got out of the lecture. Perhaps this study is evidence in favor of that method? (It also has the nice benefit of providing an unobtrusive attendance check that's less prone to gaming than a sign-in sheet is.)david morrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17628941227584383772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-26365538372598365532011-01-25T08:16:32.889-08:002011-01-25T08:16:32.889-08:00Chris, sure. Again, we don't know much about w...Chris, sure. Again, we don't know much about what the 'studying' was. It may or may nor include what you describe, self-testing.Michael Cholbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02012523929044363216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-60557397685600185662011-01-25T07:07:43.641-08:002011-01-25T07:07:43.641-08:00Is it *test taking* per se vs studying, or is it a...Is it *test taking* per se vs studying, or is it actual practice in working through the answer as opposed to just reading about the answer? <br /><br />I think of logic, for instance. Studying for a logic exam by reading the book is one thing, but actually doing large numbers of logic exercises is another. And testing is really a matter of doing exercises. So I wonder if it's not so much "test taking" but rather "hands on practice".Chris Panzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01656795570624714115noreply@blogger.com