Article One Reading Report

This article reviews various studies that all provide evidence for the effectiveness of

testing in helping individuals retain learned material. The research that is reviewed includes

experimental lab studies, studies done in educational settings with students, and studies regarding

various forms of testing to help determine its effectiveness at helping the learning process.

Throughout many of the studies, testing is compared with traditional studying and is found to be

superior in terms of helping individuals retain the information better and for longer. This article

also discusses possible downsides to testing, but determines that they are relatively insubstantial

and do not interfere significantly with the effectiveness of studying.

While various studies with different hypotheses are discussed throughout the article, the

overlying hypothesis that is being answered by the review is whether testing significantly

improves retention of learned material. Through various settings and experiments, each

researcher consistently seeks to demonstrate whether or not testing is effective. Along with this,

nearly all the studies attempt to answer the question of whether testing is superior to traditional

studying and other methods. This means that on top of simply identifying whether or not testing

is helpful for learning, the review also seeks to understand whether testing is the most superior

technique for learning over simply exposing yourself to material.

Throughout the review, various effective methods are utilized by individual studies. The

first category of studies were experimental laboratory studies. This included a couple fairly

traditional and straightforward studies that divided individuals into separate groups, one where

testing was utilized initially and another group or two where techniques like simple exposure or

studying were used without initial testing to help aid the learning process. These studies involved
tasks such as word lists, paired associate learning, and free recall, with college students used as

the subjects.

Studies were also done in educational settings that more closely resembled how testing

may look in real life. These studies involved utilizing techniques common in typical education

such as multiple choice, essay responses, and short answer tests. Similar to the lab tests, these

experiments generally split participants up into two or more groups with one group being tested

initially after learning material to see if this helped aid their retention while the other groups

would simply continue to study the material without initial testing. Participants would do tasks

commonly associated with higher level classes, such as reading prose like in textbooks, before

taking these various forms of tests to more closely mimic what classes are like.

This article also looked at studies done in the classroom where the manipulated variable

was the amount of tests given rather than whether or not students were given an initial test. These

participants were generally college students or high school students that were currently in school

participating as usual, with data being collected from entire classes and little done to control

outside variables. Dynamic and formative testing are also discussed, where students were tested

on general learning capabilities rather than current knowledge and then given feedback, and

where results of classroom testing were discussed and guided future studying and instruction,

respectively. These studies sought to demonstrate how important feedback after a test was for the

learning process.

In general, the results more often than not supported the idea that testing significantly

improves the students ability to learn and retain material. While each study had their own

individual smaller contributions and details, overall evidence pointed to testing being the most

effective way to remember information long term no matter what testing methods were used,
with studying rarely pulling ahead in effectiveness. More specifically, the education based

studies also found that short answer retrieval and producing material was the most effective for

long term retention, and classroom studies found that the more testing occurs in classrooms the

more students would generally retain information. It was also found that feedback after testing

enhanced the ability of tests to help aid the learning process from the dynamic and formative

testing studies.

This article was very thorough in its review of various forms of testing and how they

affect students' ability to learn and retain information. Various kinds of studies were used in the

review and covered in detail, and a large body of research was taken into consideration, making

it very persuasive and giving the audience a lot of significant evidence to support the

effectiveness of testing as a tool for learning. They also summarize findings very well, such as

stating that “tests promote better retention than do additional study trials with paired associates,

and repeated tests provide even greater benefits” after going over key points of laboratory tests

done regarding testing (195). This makes it easy to read and understand, and points our attention

to key important findings, which is particularly valuable in a review.

One thing that I felt could have been discussed a little more was the limitations of the

studies, or possible issues that could be addressed. After discussing two possible negative effects

of testing, the authors simply state that if frequent testing became more common, “phenomena

such as test anxiety and stereotype threat would diminish through habituation” (204). This to me

feels a little dismissive, as something as systemic as the way we test in institutions can’t be

changed or fixed quickly. In my opinion, test anxiety and mental health issues regarding testing

are still significant and prevalent enough to at least be included in future studies to see if they

influence the effectiveness of learning through testing. In general, the two possible negative
effects of testing were dismissed completely, with the authors stating that “both are real, and both

are interesting, but in our opinion, neither undermines our advocating the frequent use of testing

in the classroom”. It seems unlikely that there are no drawbacks to increased testing at all, but it

could be completely possible.

Altogether, the review does an impressive job of presenting a significant amount of

research in an effective way, and explains very well how testing is most likely the best way for

students to retain information long term.