![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/AdobeStock_258411728_Credit.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAlmost certainly, several colleagues will decry the use of discriminatory high-stakes tests<\/strong>\u00a0that stress and mis-categorize our students.<\/p>\n Others will angrily retort that research into retrieval practice<\/strong> shows that well-designed tests help students learn. Heck, “retrieval practice” yields great benefits because of “the testing effect<\/em>.”<\/p>\n Still others will heatedly contrast formative assessment with summative assessment.<\/p>\n Like the Goddess of Discord with my Golden Apple, I will have inspired an enduring battle.<\/p>\n Of course, this battle results from confusion about definitions<\/em>.<\/p>\n Scholars who champion retrieval practice or formative assessment might be said to “favor testing,” but they favor very specific kinds of testing. The testing they champion (probably) looks nothing like the high-stakes test that my first respondents so loathe.<\/p>\n In other words: my colleagues don’t necessarily disagree with each other. Because this one word has different meanings, they’re probably arguing about different topics without realizing it.<\/p>\n Even if I narrow my question to “pre-testing,” I’ve still created many opportunities for confusion.<\/p>\n I might, for instance, “pre-test” my students about the myth of the Golden Apple because I want to know what they already know.<\/p>\n My goal, in other words, isn’t to\u00a0evaluate<\/em> them. Instead, I want to align my lessons with their current knowledge. After all, I need one lesson plan for a class which has never heard of Zeus, Aphrodite, or Troy; and a completely different lesson plan for a class that read\u00a0The Iliad<\/em> last year.<\/p>\n I’m “pre-testing” as an early step in my own lesson planning.<\/p>\n On the other hand, we have a fascinating research pool suggesting that “pre-testing” itself might help students learn<\/em>. That is: the act of taking that pretest can improve their ultimate understanding of the material later in the unit.<\/p>\n Amazingly, according to this research pool, these pre-tests benefit students even if they get all the answers wrong<\/em>. (Of course<\/em> they get the answers wrong. They haven’t yet done the unit with me.)<\/p>\n For instance, Dr. Lindsay Richland and Co. pre-tested students on a passage about color-blindness<\/a>. They found that students who took a pretest (and got all the answers wrong) ultimately learned more than students who used that extra time to study the passage. (As I’ve written earlier<\/a>, I love this study because Richland works SO HARD to disprove her own hypothesis.)<\/p>\n So far, we’ve seen that the benefits<\/em> of testing depend on the definition<\/em> of testing. While we know that some tests stress and demotivate students, we’ve also got research suggesting that\u00a0a very specific kind of pre-testing<\/em> might help students learn.<\/p>\n Of course, we know that psychology research always includes\u00a0boundary conditions<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/em>A teaching technique that works in one set of circumstances might not work in others.<\/p>\n So, for instance, a teaching technique that helps 3rd graders learn might not help college students. Or, a strategy to help students write well might not help them learn to pirouette in dance class.<\/p>\n We know that there will be boundaries for this (very specific kind of) pre-testing. What are they?<\/p>\n As is so often the case, this question has led to complexity and controversy. For instance: several scholars have found that pretesting helps students make new connections\u00a0only\u00a0<\/em>if they already know a little bit about the material.<\/em><\/p>\n A study from 2014, however, suggests that pre-testing\u00a0helps students\u00a0even if they don’t know anything about the material<\/em>.<\/p>\n For teachers,\u00a0this distinction matters.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n If students need at least a little prior knowledge for pretesting to be helpful, we will use this technique less often. If, however, they don’t need that prior knowledge, then our decision to limit its use robs them of a chance to learn.<\/p>\n To use this technique correctly, we really need to know the right answer.<\/p>\nConfusion Gets Clearer<\/h2>\n
Getting the Specifics JUST RIGHT<\/h2>\n
Today’s Research: Activating Prior Knowledge<\/h2>\n