Some choice nuggets from “How to Learn Better at Any Age” by writer Peter Brown and cognitive psychologists Henry Roediger and Mark McDaniel:
Retrieval practice — recalling facts or concepts from memory — is a more effective learning strategy than review by rereading.
[Interleaved practice] produces longer-lasting learning and enables more versatile application of it in later settings.
Trying to solve a problem before being taught the solution leads to better learning, even when errors are made in the attempt.
You learn better [by] drawing on all of your aptitudes and resourcefulness, than when you limit instruction or experience to the style you find most amenable.
Better yet, write your own summary.
Some thoughts on what tests should measure, from Justin Minkel:
Harvard education scholar Tony Wagner was quoted in a recent op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman on what we should be measuring instead: “Because knowledge is available on every Internet-connected device, what you know matters far less than what you can do with what you know. The capacity to innovate—the ability to solve problems creatively or bring new possibilities to life—and skills like critical thinking, communication and collaboration are far more important than academic knowledge.”
Can we measure these things that matter? I think we can. It’s harder to measure critical thinking and innovation than it is to measure basic skills. Harder but not impossible.
For starters, we need to make sure that tests students take meets [sic] three basic criteria:
1. They must measure individual student growth.
2. Questions must be differentiated, so the test captures what students below and above grade-level know and still need to learn.
3. The tests must measures [sic] what matters: critical thinking, ingenuity, collaboration, and real-world problem-solving.
Measuring individual growth and providing differentiated questions are obvious design goals for personalized assessment. The third remains a challenge for assessment design all around.