by cynthia brame, ph.d., cft assistant director<\/em><\/p>\n
<\/a>last september, i read an article<\/a> in the new york times magazine<\/em> suggesting that pre-testing could improve subsequent student learning. the article was based on work by elizabeth ligon bjork and colleagues, and indicated that pre-testing could help students avoid the \u201cfluency fallacy\u201d and might alert them to the kind of learning that their instructor valued.<\/p>\n
i began working with rachel biel, undergraduate intern at the cft and vanderbilt hod major, to synthesize some of the literature on the testing effect to share with broader audiences. we chose studies that focused on college-age students and that used educationally relevant materials (e.g., reading passages as opposed to word pairs). after reading more than 40 primary research reports, we drew six conclusions about the testing effect, as well as some important caveats to keep in mind. we wrote those conclusions up to share with college science instructors in cbe-life sciences education<\/a>, where the article is a featured article<\/a> in the summer issue. we\u2019ve also drafted a briefer description appropriate across the disciplines to share as a teaching guide.<\/p>\n
we invite you to check out the teaching guide<\/a> or the cbe-lse article<\/a> and let us know how the research on the testing effect will change your practice.<\/p>\n