Article: Testing is Learning

by Walter Milner, Instructional Designer IV, Learning and Educational Center

Testing is Learning

We most often think of testing as a way to assess what was learned by a student. And it is. But it is also more than that. The act, itself, of being “tested” also produces measurable learning and long-term retention of material and may even be more effective at long-term retention than studying is. The type of testing that accomplishes this is testing that occurs between learning and a final, or summative, test. It could be formative assessments given shortly after learning occurs or self-testing that can be done while studying. Frequent testing by an instructor, especially testing that involves recall of information, can greatly improve student outcomes on summative assessments and long-term retention of material (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Likewise, encouraging students to self-test, even every few minutes, while studying or reading will help them have better outcomes than simply reviewing the material over and over again (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). 

In cognitive psychology, this has been studied and written about for many decades and is often known as the “testing effect” (Polack & Miller, 2022). The “effect” when it comes to learners is that students who take an intervening test between the time they first learn or study and the time they take a summative exam remember more of the material than students who did not take an intervening assessment (Glover, 1989). This is not simply due to increased exposure to the material (Polack & Miller, 2022; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). Research suggests that it is the retrieval process that produces this effect, that the higher number of retrieval events the better the results, and that free recall (as opposed to cued recall) likely produces the strongest results, with cued recall coming in next and assessment based on recognition following that (Glover, 1989).  

Better than studying (or at least better than just studying…) 

While different question types may deliver different results based on the context, all testing, regardless of question formats, produces better results for long-term learning than studying alone does (Binks, 2018; Brame & Biel, 2015; Glover, 1989; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). If one had to choose between time spent restudying material and time spent on testing of that material, students who are tested show more positive results in terms of memory and long-term retention than students who spent the same amount of time restudying (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). This is true even if performance on the test is poor and no feedback is given (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). This is especially interesting considering that the students who study by going over the material multiple times is having repeated exposure to the content, while the group of students who are being tested through recall, is only exposed to the material they can remember during the test (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b).  

Students who study by going over the material again and again, rereading notes and text, do have better short-term results, but the retention doesn’t last in terms of long-term learning, such as that needed on a summative assessment (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). Moreover, students who study through repeated exposure to material have a false sense of confidence and feel they will do better than the students who prepared through intervening tests, but the “repeated study” group actually performs worse on summative exams compared to the “testing” group (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). The short-term gain of repeated exposure also leads students to repeat ineffective study techniques as they base their predictions for success on their short-term gains (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). While it may be acknowledged that testing leads to learning, it is often thought that it is the studying for the test that leads to this learning (Brame & Biel, 2015). According to the “testing effect” however, intervening testing produces better learning results than the studying itself. Surely, a combination of study through repeated exposure along with intervening testing to force recall of the material is the best strategy overall for students. 

How to Test 

While it isn’t necessarily always the case, depending on context and factors such as subject matter, there is evidence pointing to the idea that testing that involves recall, without use of cues or that asks students questions based on recognition of presented information, has the biggest impact on long-term learning outcomes (Binks, 2018; Brame & Biel, 2015; Glover, 1989; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a).  For example, taking a short-answer test in between a learning event and summative exam, has better results than taking a multiple-choice test (Butler & Roediger, 2007). It is the forced act of recall itself that has the biggest impact on learning. The more “complete” (in the words of Glover), meaning totally dependent on the student’s memory rather than based on given information, the better (Glover, 1989). Although, as noted earlier, all testing formats improve long-term performance to some degree. 

The frequency of testing is also important. The more intervening tests given, the better the results will be (Glover, 1989; Rawson & Dunlosky, 2012). Three or four “practice” tests after the initial learning event has been argued to be a good number (Rawson & Dunlosky, 2012). These tests should be spaced apart in time intervals (Glover, 1989) and those time intervals should ideally be expanding (Binks, 2018).  

Feedback can also be an important tool that adds to the testing effect, although testing alone, even without feedback, is still beneficial and leads to better long-term retention and memory than studying alone (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). By adding feedback to the process, students benefit even further as feedback strengthens the benefits of testing (Brame & Biel, 2015). If the feedback is thorough, specific, and corrective these benefits will be even stronger (Binks, 2018; Kang et al., 2007). This is especially true if the performance on the intervening assessment is poor (Kang et al., 2007).

Bringing the benefit of the testing effect into the classroom 

Adding more formative testing in the classroom will greatly benefit your students. Not only will it directly improve their learning, but it will also give you important information about how well they are learning the material (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). It may also encourage them to study more, be more regularly engaged with the content, and perhaps even reduce anxiety on summative exams, all of which could lead to improving scores (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). This should be presented to students as a low-stakes, or no-stakes, learning opportunity that is seen as practice, and that doesn’t produce any testing anxiety in students (Brame & Biel, 2015). This type of testing can also be very useful during long class sessions, for example, to break up the lecture and help cement the information that is being delivered (Dunlosky & Rawson, 2015). This would be similar to the way a student can apply this method when studying in order to better retain the information. 

When it comes to studying, you can help students greatly by sharing these ideas with them and teaching them how to study more effectively. Many, if not most, students study by going over the material multiple times, and “rehearsing” it. Students should be directed to take in a limited amount of information for a few minutes at a time and then stop and try to force recall of what they just read by testing themselves – even mentally without writing anything down. Immediate testing after reading has been shown to have better outcomes for long-term retrieval than simply reading the material over and over again (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). If you can get your students to engage in self-testing during study, you can improve their success and learning outcomes (Binks, 2018; Dunlosky & Rawson, 2015). Students should know that it is not simply rehearsal of content that improves memory (Glover, 1989). Intervening tests between a learning event and a summative exam, and self-testing during studying, will help improve both students’ and your long-term retention of information and memory leading to better results for anyone who is a learner and wants to use their time effectively to give themselves the best results possible.  

There are many types of formative assessment that can be helpful in achieving more effective retention of information. These may include polls, embedded questions in videos, simple interactives, exit tickets, and more. If you are looking for assistance in developing effective formative assessments for your students, the instructional designers at the LEC are happy to help. Click on the link below to book an appointment with one of our instructional designers. 

Book a Time to Meet with an Instructional Designer  

 

References 

Binks, S. (2018). Testing enhances learning: A review of the literature. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(3), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.08.008 

Brame, C. J., & Biel, R. (2015). Test-Enhanced learning: The potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), es4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0208 

Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326097 

Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000024 

Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.81.3.392 

Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 528–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620 

Polack, C. W., & Miller, R. R. (2022). Testing improves performance as well as assesses learning: A review of the testing effect with implications for models of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 48(3), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000323 

Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). When is practice testing most effective for improving the durability and efficiency of student learning? Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9203-1

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test-Enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x 

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x