It’s always nice to find that a study has confirmed the bases of one’s personal gripes. Researchers have found that repeated test-taking is better for retention than repeated studying. The results are quite dramatic:
>>
In two experiments, one group of students studied a prose passage for about five minutes and then took either one or three immediate free-recall tests, receiving no feedback on the accuracy of answers. Another group received no tests in this phase, but was allowed another five minutes to restudy the passage each time their counterparts were involved in a testing session.
. . . [When] [t]ested one week later, the study-test-test-test group scored dramatically better, remembering 61 percent of the passage as compared with only 40 percent by the study-only group.
The study-only group had read the passage about 14 times, but still recalled less than the repeated testing group, which had read the passage only 3.4 times in its one-and-only study session.
“Our findings demonstrate that the testing effect is not simply a result of students gaining re-exposure to the material during testing because students in our repeated-study group had multiple opportunities to re-experience 100 percent of the material but still produced poor long-term retention. Clearly, testing enhances long-term retention through some mechanism that is both different from and more effective than restudy alone.”
>>
I actually came into law school thinking I would like the model of one big test for each class. After all, I’m fairly good at cramming and, although it used to be much much better, still have a pretty good memory. But by now I find myself expressing envy at people in programs that have midterms, and am even a bit jealous of my med-school roommate who seems to have finals every few weeks.
A few weeks ago, I met a distant set of relatives whose daughter goes to a private elementary school where the kids each receive a mini-computer. The teacher apparently makes a lot of interactive use of these computers in class– for example, shyer kids can type in questions to the teacher so she can respond to them as the class is in session. My first thought was what an amazing change this was from the days of my yore when classroom computing seemed mostly to be a vehicle for playing Oregon Trail.
My second thought, was: why is law school further behind the ball on educational theory and the use of technology in the classroom than an elementary school!?
There has, admittedly, been useful progress in the use of technology in legal education: we receive laptops to take notes, we can find assignments and discussion-prompts online, and I think CALI lessons (a collection of online tutorial-quizzes) are pretty much the best thing ever. Yet for the most part, technology has primarily been used as a supplement and has not been used to shape classtime itself. I know it would be tremendously helpful for me to have something like CALI lessons that is tailored to each day’s lessons (or each text-reading)– and can be used as a quick check for understanding as concepts are presented.
An article envisioning the future of legal education sketches out this scenario:
>>
Outcome assessment exercises linked to each legal concept in the course determine each student’s progress. When students complete the readings for a given concept, the software provides them with interactive hypotheticals that assess each student’s understanding of the concept. The score on these outcome assessment exercises determines whether the student is ready to progress to the next topic. If the student receives an unsatisfactory score, the computer will guide the student through a tutorial prior to requiring the student to complete one or more outcome assessment exercises. If a student fails to achieve a satisfactory score on the outcome assessment exercises on a given topic, the class materials software automatically matches the student with a mentor, usually an upper level student. When students reach or exceed a pre-determined score for each concept, the software permits them to proceed to the next topic. This process ensures that students with different styles and abilities arrive to class similarly prepared to discuss the assigned materials. The software also alerts Professor Smith of the student’s need for extra tutoring enabling her to monitor the student’s progress and, if necessary, provide further assistance.
>>
On the other-hand, the article seems to revel in the Big-Brother possibilities of classroom technology:
>>
Today, Professor Smith’s classroom monitor notifies her that Eric Cartman is not prepared for class. The monitor indicates that Mr. Cartman has come to class unprepared four times since school began. Professor Smith touches Mr. Cartman’s photo on the monitor. This automatically checks Professor Smith’s and Mr. Cartman’s schedules and sends Mr. Cartman an email requesting a meeting and providing Mr. Cartman optional times and dates to meet.
The class software also cross-checks every student who is absent with the number of allowed absences and contacts any student who is about to violate the attendance policy.
>>
Um, no thanks. Actually, I remain jealous of my med-school roommate, who has the option of viewing lectures on tape rather than even setting foot in a classroom. At this point in life, I for one would be fine with earning a degree over the internet. Maybe it’s just a matter of having grown up in a multimedia-immersed, multitasking-oriented (or less politely, ADD-riddled) generation, but I find my attention-level is much better when I can divide tasks into discrete segments, and have control over the the pace of my learning.
*~*~*
On a less self-absorbed note: as someone who knows a lot of teachers and has heard a lot of harangues about the damaging effects of state and federal testing mandates, I’m concerned that this research will be used to justify the imposition of even more time-wasting bureaucracy. I think the best way of making use of the findings of this research is as a guide for teachers to design their own methods for incorporating concept-checks that fit the needs of their own classrooms. Standardized testing is just not flexible enough, and often focuses on minutiae at the expense of concepts that are more important but more time-consuming to teach, and are less-conducive to a particular testing format.
