How to Learn: Take a Test?

There is an interesting paper in this weeks Science regarding how to learn. To best understand this article one should also read the brilliant 1987 work of Winograd and Flores, and then perhaps there would be a confluence.

The authors of the Science article state:

Here, we show that practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. The advantage of retrieval practice generalized across texts identical to those commonly found in science education. The advantage of retrieval practice was observed with test questions that assessed comprehension and required students to make inferences. The advantage of retrieval practice occurred even when the criterial test involved creating concept maps. Our findings support the theory that retrieval practice enhances learning by retrieval-specific mechanisms rather than by elaborative study processes. Retrieval practice is an effective tool to promote conceptual learning about science.

Now for engineers like me, reading anything by psychologists must require translation. Retrieval practices means taking tests on what you studied. Testing yourself they conclude enhances retention and more importantly, if I translate them correctly, understanding.

Winograd and Flores took this a step further, by a hands on approach we learn the true meaning. Thus in Medicine, one can study  a disease as much as you like but it is the case of Mr. Brown or Mrs. Green that sticks in your mind, you remember almost viscerally all the elements. In engineering it is the first build it and test it to see if it works, because you will inevitably make errors from which you will learn the most, you correct them and that process leads to understanding, not just retention.

That is the essence of the Winograd and Flores understanding.

The question posed is one which asks if multiple choice exams, such as Board exams, serve a purpose, since when one studies them one memorizes, and in today's Board exams purportedly one also infers from the memorized fact.

But the practice may use the facts but it is the hands on experience from which true understanding flows.

Finally teaching it also is worthwhile, especially if your students are motivated to test your understanding to the limit. At MIT an instructor would always be tested. The student was always trying to find a mistake that you made. In contrast when I taught business finance at Columbia, I often wondered if they had a clue. Was it Columbia, business school, or both?