Do we need tests to learn?

Check out this answer from Consensus:

Do We Need Tests to Learn?

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the notion that tests are not merely tools for assessment but are also powerful instruments for learning. The testing effect has been shown to enhance retention, improve self-regulated learning, and even facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge. However, its effectiveness can vary depending on the complexity of the material and other contextual factors. Educators and policymakers should consider these findings to optimize teaching strategies and improve educational outcomes.

The role of testing in education has been a subject of extensive research and debate. While traditionally viewed as a means of assessment, recent studies suggest that testing can also serve as a powerful tool for enhancing learning. This article explores the concept of the “testing effect,” which posits that taking tests on studied material can significantly improve long-term retention and understanding. We will examine the evidence supporting this phenomenon, the conditions under which it is most effective, and its implications for educational practice.

The Testing Effect: An Overview

The testing effect refers to the improvement in learning and retention that occurs when students take practice tests on studied material. A meta-analysis by1 found that practice tests are more beneficial for learning than other methods such as restudying or engaging in filler activities. This effect is not limited to simple recall but extends to more complex cognitive processes, as demonstrated by3, which showed that repeated retrieval using various formats enhances long-term learning.

Evidence from Meta-Analyses

Several meta-analyses have provided robust evidence for the testing effect. For instance,2 reviewed data from 48,478 students across 222 studies and found that testing significantly boosts classroom learning compared to other strategies like concept mapping. The study highlighted that the magnitude of the testing effect is influenced by factors such as test format, feedback, and the number of test repetitions.

Testing and Self-Regulated Learning

Testing not only improves retention but also enhances self-regulated learning (SRL). According to4, regular practice testing helps recalibrate metacognitive monitoring, making students less overconfident and more accurate in their self-assessments. This leads to more efficient SRL processes and better learning outcomes.

Practical Implications

The practical implications of the testing effect are significant. Educators are encouraged to incorporate regular practice tests into their teaching strategies to enhance student learning. As noted by5, testing that promotes recall rather than recognition, repeated at intervals and accompanied by feedback, is optimal for learning. Additionally,6 found that test-enhanced learning is beneficial even for students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, suggesting its broad applicability.

Boundary Conditions

While the testing effect is generally robust, it is subject to certain boundary conditions. For example,8 pointed out that the effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of the learning material increases. This suggests that while testing is beneficial for simpler tasks, its effectiveness may be limited for more complex subjects.

The Forward Effect of Testing

Another interesting aspect of the testing effect is its forward impact on subsequent learning. Research by7 demonstrated that interim testing on previously studied material enhances the learning of new material. This “forward effect” suggests that testing not only consolidates existing knowledge but also prepares students to learn new information more effectively.

Incentives and Testing

The role of incentives in test-enhanced learning is less clear. A study by9 found that while exposure to exams predicted better learning, the level of incentives did not significantly moderate this effect. This contradicts some laboratory findings and indicates that the relationship between incentives and the testing effect warrants further investigation.

 

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Laura Ward has answered Uncertain

An expert from University of Glasgow in Psychology, Public Health

Human beings have been learning far longer than formal testing has been employed. Some historical tests would be fatal as individuals would die if they didn’t learn basic survival or safety of their environments. Modern day tests have been devised to assess formal learning, for better or worse. Francis Galton achieved a great deal for science and in the late 1800’s he developed formal testing of an individual’s intelligence. Whilst methodologies are integral to advancing science, these need scrutinised and developed also. Let’s not forget that previous scientists have attributed a large forehead to becoming a criminal. Modern science and medicine is more heavily scrutinised and reviewed compared to historical advancements. I hope that all learning in education settings is based on evidence-based science, but I have no doubt that we can learn without tests. Our brains are firing neurons of information sharing constantly, the developmental changes in babies and toddlers are evidence they are learning all the time, but do not need formally tested. We all need to learn, but only some of us may be praised as having learnt well via a test, whilst the merit of life-experience is undoubtedly important.

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Diane Grayson has answered Unlikely

An expert from University of Witwatersrand in Education

My answer is no. As an adult with good self-regulation and metacognitive skills, I learn all the time without tests. However, for novice learners who are still developing such skills, being provided with structured opportunities to demonstrate their learning and to get useful feedback, such as can be provided in a well-designed and carefully graded test, can contribute to learning. If, however, a test does not align to the outcomes that both teacher and student understand are the goals of the learning programme or activity and/or there is little useful and constructive feedback provided to the student, then the test is unlikely to support learning. It may, in fact, undermine deep and meaningful learning if the test questions are too divergent from the learning outcomes or the feedback is cursory or, worse still, demoralising.

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Dan Isbell has answered Uncertain

An expert from University of Hawaii at Manoa in Linguistics

We do not need tests to learn, but testing can benefit learning. Regular testing of taught material can aid learning; recent research in second language vocabulary learning suggests that regular quizzing leads to improved word learning, for example. Tests require students to recall information, which is known to benefit learning, and preparing for a test may lead students to spend more time engaging with material or honing skills, which also benefits learning.

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Edith Kaan has answered Unlikely

An expert from University of Florida in Language Studies

No, tests are not needed to learn. You can learn something (e.g. a word) even after only hearing it once (this is called “one-shot learning”). Tests do tend to help learning since knowing that you will be tested can be a motivation to rehearse the materials, and in that way, more deeply encode them. It has also been shown that you learn better if you try to come up with an answer first and can check immediately whether you got it right or wrong (e.g. Potts and Shanks, 2014). Also here, motivation and reward of getting things right may lead to better encoding and better learning from errors. You do not need a formal test for this, though!  

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Dominic Wyse has answered Unlikely

An expert from University College London in Education

Tests and exams are one way to assess pupils’ learning. Optimal learning happens when teachers assess children’s learning then base teaching on their assessments of children learning. Tests and exams are a summative assessment of an aspects of pupils’ progress. There are other ways of assessing pupils’ learning that give formative information to teachers. Finally, it is important to note that we all learn some things without any assessment at all so the literal answer to the question is no we don’t need tests or examples to learn although high quality teacher assessment does usually help people learn quicker.

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Ayşenur Sağdıç  has answered Unlikely

An expert from Georgetown University in Linguistics

Tests involve questions, problem sets, or exercises that are posed to evaluate a particular skill or a set of skills and come in many forms (e.g., self-assessment tests, diagnostics, summative vs formative assessment tools). Young children, for instance, are capable of acquiring a first language without taking any external tests; however, as several studies indicate, first language acquisition does involve frequent hypothesis testing. While we, as humans, do not necessarily need tests to learn new information, reliable and valid tests can facilitate short-term and long-term learning outcomes in meaningful ways. Good tests

1) provide insights and feedback on what has been learned and what has yet to be learned.

2) motivate learners to continue improving their knowledge or skillset.

3) motivate educators to implement optimal instructional practices, also known as positive washback.

4) allow education stakeholders to make actionable and systematic recommendations in terms of program needs and goals.

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Emma Blakey has answered Likely

An expert from University of Sheffield in Psychology, Cognitive Science

Karpicke and Roediger’s (2008) cognitive Psychology study has been very influential in informing educators’ on how we can utilise assessments to improve students’ learning. In their paper, they report a learning experiment where they found that repeated studying after learning had no effect on students’ recall, but repeated testing improved students’ recall dramatically. The study nicely demonstrates the importance of retrieval in learning. The more that information is retrieved over time (recalled in our heads), the better we will learn and remember it. Tests provide an ideal format to do that and support us in learning knowledge explicitly (with full awareness). However, it is also important to remember that some learning (particularly procedural or skill learning such as riding a bike) can also be learned implicitly with practice.

Reference: Karpicke, J. D. & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science, 319, 966-968.

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Michael Thomas has answered Unlikely

An expert from Birkbeck, University of London in Psychology, Cognitive Science, Intelligence

No, but testing can help us learn by giving us practice in accessing and organising the content of learning. It strengthens the connections between prefrontal cortex (which tries to reactive knowledge in the appropriate circumstances) and posterior cortex (where the sensory and conceptual content of knowledge is stored). Testing plays a separate role in monitoring the progress of learning. Sometimes, the monitoring (summative) and learning (formative) aspects of testing pull in the same direction, but sometimes they don’t (e.g., only learning what you think will be in the test).

 

Do we need tests to learn?

Yousef Khalifa Aleghfeli has answered Unlikely

An expert from Oxford University in Education

No. Tests/exams are just one of many tools to help in learning. Although tests and exams are useful tools for learning, we do not necessarily need them. They are simple one of several tools to use for learning, and it’s good to assess the learner’s context to determine what combination of tools are contextually appropriate and can ensure optimal learning. In short, we would only require tests/exams if the individual needs and circumstances of learners require them.