<p>I was interested by this article in today's NYT that some sceintists have found that testing, and more importantly, just simple reading to prep for a test is how kids learn best. No fancy diagramming, no cramming, no note taking--just read it and you'll know more than any other method. And do better on the tests. This seems a pretty low level definition of "education" to me. Its foundational, but not much more. </p>
<p>Yet the results of these experiments to determine how kids learn were taken seriously by some important perople, including Howard Gardner, whom I admire for his theories of "multiple intelligences" What do other parents think? </p>
<p>My initial reaction was more tresting is needed.</p>
<p>Then I read this…</p>
<p>More testing isnt necessarily better, said Dr. Linn, who said her work with California school districts had found that asking students to explain what they did in a science experiment rather than having them simply conduct the hands-on experiment a version of retrieval practice testing was beneficial. Some tests are just not learning opportunities. We need a different kind of testing than we currently have. </p>
<p>Anyway, I am bumping this up because I find this subject interesting. :)</p>