Just thinking through something…I’d appreciate your thoughts.
I don’t understand forcing kids to study in order to get a “good grade.”
They take tests at the end of a unit.
They have to study for the test.
They have to study because they don’t know the material.
If they don’t know it, then why give the test?
O that’s right, to teach them how to study…because they need practice.
If you have to study something that means you don’t know it.
If you have to study something you are memorizing it…right?
If you are memorizing something it is going into short term memory.
That means within 72 hours most of it will be forgotten.
But studying can also mean practice…and practice is good right?
Then why don’t teachers just have the kids practice the material earlier in the unit.
What? O they did, and now the kids are practicing it again…for practice, so they’ll know it for the test.
The kids did practice it with the teacher, have now forgotten what they practiced, and now will do it on their own.
So then…if studying for a test is good, if not knowing something the day before it is accessed is good so that they have to study and practice for the test…
Then teachers should not teach for understanding during the unit, this would force more studying, and make the kids practice more.
That would be…errr….good.
Because if they knew the material at the end of the unit they wouldn’t have to study and would miss the opportunity for… more practice.
I don’t get it. Why is it not insulting to admit that your kids had to study for a test? If you proudly say my kids have to study hard for the test, isn’t that admitting that they did not understand or retain the material you taught in class leading up to the test? And if you know they had to study, meaning you knew that they did not know the information, then why was the test given?
Here is a challenge for you…give your kids tests. Give them quizzes. But don’t let them study.
What kind of results do you think you’d get?
1-If they receive low grades without studying…who would you blame. Them?
2-If they got high grades without studying…who would you credit? You?
Should the answer to both questions be the same?
Just thinking through something…I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Stop teaching, just have the kids study more… | Blogush -- Topsy.com
According to one study, giving them tests will do quite a bit more than just teaching the material and letting them study: http://www.good.is/post/practice-testing-makes-perfect/
“Researchers gave 118 students 48 Swahili words and their English meanings… Half the group then studied, while the other took a pop quiz. Then, all the students took one of three tests a week later… The undergrads that had to take the pop quiz blew their competition away, recalling three times as many words as those who just studied.”
I’m actually about to start a study of some of my students, varying the amount of autonomy in the classroom. On the low autonomy end, students will be required to take a quiz each week. On the high autonomy end, they will be given a choice of what and how to learn. There will also be a control in the middle. I wonder if I will see the low autonomy class succeed due entirely to this effect…
Either way, I credit a combination of my skills, the students’ aptitude, and their background.
I knew someone was going to bring up that study
In my head as I was writing I was thinking more about an end of unit test that “ends” learning and the kids no longer use the information in class. The one in which the kid goes home and memorizes the five causes of X, spits it back on a test and never repeats it again.
I wonder if the results of the study (if done in say a social studies class) would have changed if instead of giving pop quizzes, they gave pop activities which relied on understanding of the events, rather than the students recall ability. Maybe they would score lower than kids who were given a straight memorization test later in the year, but then maybe we are also giving the wrong type of assessments.
I can recall lots of stuff from school – 40 years ago – that I absorbed because I was so wrapped up in the lessons that it just became part of me. I can recall little if anything of stuff I had to ‘learn’ which made up 80% of what I did at school.
Great post Paul. I have never been a fan of tests at all seeing that I don’t think students should simply be consuming and regurgitating material.
If we are working toward enduring understanding than how does cramming for a test on content help achieve anything?
I suppose, one could argue that students need to learn some skills and these skills can only be learned through cramming and practice, but even in that case I think that practice and demonstration of skills is better served through practical real life based projects.
I generally focus on using the concepts I’m teaching over and over again so that there is adequate practice in using the material. It is my goal that they be able to recall material from Unit 1 in the fall that applies to Romeo and Juliet (in the spring). Or to use information from English I and know they understand what I’m talking about in English III.
Do I still give study guides and tests? Yep. I guess I remember what kind of test taker I was…and even though I could tell you everything on the test, I generally didn’t do so well the day of the test. Some of us are just prone to fits of anxiety, I guess.
But your post brings up a bigger question…and maybe this is the question I always get from your blog: why do we do what we are doing? Is it because it’s always been done that way? Is it because it’s really necessary or important?
I struggle with those questions. I love teaching, but sometimes I wonder, “Am I really doing them a service? Are they really going to use this in the future?” Sometimes I can legitimately say nope and get rid of that particular piece of information…but can I do that with everything? Do I even have anything with which to replace it?
Maybe this is just a bad week…
I think that, like many students, you are confusing studying and cramming. Cramming in the last few days before a test is indeed pretty useless for long-term retention.
Studying is repeated practice with the material until it is mastered. This may mean doing many math problems, re-reading a novel a couple of times, writing several drafts of a paper, creating a play or poster presentation, …
Studying is how material is learned and retained. How much studying is needed depends on how good the student’s memory is and what sort of conceptual framework they already have to fit the ideas into. It has very little to do with the current teacher, but a lot to do with previous teachers.
You are right…but I was using the word in its normal context. What you have listed as studying above, is what studying should be. And conceptual framework!! Since little of that is provided I guess that is why the teachers expect the kids to study…I mean cram before the test.
Pop psych quiz!
There are three types of memory processing, each with varying power for long term recall. Listed least to most powerful they are physical, auditory, and semantic. When students cram for tests, they usually use flash cards and sometimes repeat things in their heads (the first two types). Interestingly, it’s the third type in which actual long term retention and recall is the most likely to take place.
It’s actually a misconception that short term memory lasts a couple days. Short term memory is most likely based on a limited capacity more than a limited time frame. General consensus is that, without patterns or chunking, most people can hold 7 things with a deviation of 2 in STM. Once memories get stored in LTM, they are there forever, but the way they are stored is what makes them easy or hard to get back out. Hence the “tip of the tongue” phenomenon when you know something, but you just can’t quite get at it.
The funny thing is that if our goal is merely to memorize material (gross), this system is still failing that goal. Because we motivate with short term goals, we’ll never get long term recall ability. We’ll get physical and audio memorization which is very hard to recall because it’s not stored semantically.
What’s cool is that critical thinking is the process of storing things semantically. So we learn a lifelong skill while memorizing material more effectively. But this takes more work from the student and the teacher. I’d argue that this takes so much more work that motivation through a grade won’t cut it. We need different, more intrinsic, motivating factors for thinking critically and grades undercut that effort.
And my answers to your questions:
1-If they receive low grades without studying…who would you blame? Me.
2-If they got high grades without studying…who would you credit? Them. (crediting myself would be kind of boring, huh? kind of like giving myself a high five…)
(I’m assuming by grades you mean, “ability to show knowledge of the material”
)
you know it’s a good post when i feel compelled to type this much!
Love the blog, Paul! Mahalo!
Nate