Readings - Patrick O'Malley & David Figilo

“More Testing, More Learning” - A Proposal Paper

Here is a summary of the proposal, its reasons, and responses to your questions based on the provided sources:

Summary of the Proposal and its Reason

Patrick O'Malley's proposal, written as a first-year college student, argues against "high-stakes exams" and instead advocates for frequent, brief in-class exams. He conducted research, including interviews with professors and students, and reviewed published research to support his claims.

The primary reason for O'Malley's proposal is that high-stakes exams are detrimental to students both psychologically and cognitively, causing "unnecessary amounts of stress" and leading students to "choke under pressure" or score lower than their potential. Research using fMRI brain scans suggests that the pressure of big tests can even "stunt the cognitive systems that support the attention and memory skills every day". Furthermore, these exams discourage regular study, promote cramming, and contribute to procrastination and anxiety. Students themselves recognise they learn least in courses with only a midterm and final.

O'Malley's proposed solution is for professors to give brief exams at frequent intervals, ideally an in-class test or quiz after each unit, chapter, or focus of study, given weekly or at least twice monthly. These exams should ideally consist of two or three essay questions, taking no more than 15 or 20 minutes, to preserve class time.

The benefits of this solution are numerous:

• Students would be spurred to learn more and worry less, studying more regularly, performing better on tests, and enhancing their cognitive functioning.

• Frequent testing, also known as "retrieval testing," leads to better long-term retention than repeated studying and is more effective for comprehension and analysis.

• Students prefer frequent evaluation and believe they learn most in courses that offer "many opportunities to see how they are doing".

• Frequent exams would encourage students to improve their study habits, reducing the likelihood of last-minute cramming and fostering consistent, careful study.

• By encouraging regular study, these exams would decrease anxiety by reducing procrastination, which has a strong relationship with high anxiety and lower grades.

• Ultimately, O'Malley believes frequent, brief in-class exams are the only way to improve students' study habits and learning, reduce their anxiety and procrastination, and increase their satisfaction with college.

O'Malley also addresses common professorial objections that frequent exams take too much class time or too much time to grade, offering various practical solutions such as reducing frequency or length, skimming exams, using simpler grading, or utilising TAs or Scantron machines. He also argues against alternative solutions like study skills programs, frequent study questions, or providing exam topics in advance, presenting evidence or reasoning for why these are less effective than his proposed solution.

Reflection on High-Stakes Exams and the Opening Scenario

How I feel about high-stakes exams: The sources present a compelling argument against high-stakes exams, highlighting their negative impacts on student well-being and actual learning. From the perspective of the research cited, these exams appear to create an environment of fear and pressure that can hinder, rather than facilitate, effective learning and accurate assessment of knowledge. The emphasis on a single or dual performance seems to overlook the continuous process of learning and the potential for students to underperform due to stress, rather than lack of understanding.

How well the opening scenario resonates for you: The opening scenario (paragraph 3) resonates very well. It vividly captures the intense, late-night anxiety, the "make or break" pressure of a single exam, and the uncertainty about whether one has studied "enough" or "the right things". The fear of failing and the feeling that it's "too late to drop the course" creates a palpable sense of dread and helplessness, which many students likely experience. This framing effectively establishes the emotional weight of the problem O'Malley seeks to address, making the case for change immediately understandable and relatable from a student's perspective.

O’Malley’s Audience and the Convincingness of his Sources

O'Malley's intended audience for his essay is primarily professors, as indicated by his direct engagement with their likely objections and preferred solutions. He aims to persuade them to change their testing practices. The conclusion also broadens the appeal to "Campus administrators," suggesting they should support this effort.

How convincing his reader(s) will find the sources he uses: O'Malley's reader(s), particularly professors and administrators, would likely find his sources highly convincing due to their academic rigour and variety.

• He cites published research from reputable academic journals and institutions, such as studies from Cornell University Medical School, Psychological Science, and Science.

• He incorporates expert opinions from psychology professors and researchers, like Sian Beilock, Henry L. Roediger, Jeffrey Karpicke, and Robert Bjork.

• He references university-specific studies, such as a Harvard study on student preferences for evaluation.

• He also draws on anecdotal evidence from his own experience, talks with students, and his friends' experiences, which adds a relatable student voice to the academic arguments.

• The fact that he cited his sources using APA style as requested by his instructor also lends an air of academic professionalism to his work.

The combination of scientific research, expert testimony, institutional reports, and student experiences creates a multi-faceted and robust body of evidence that significantly strengthens his arguments and makes his proposal highly credible to an academic audience.

Effectiveness of O’Malley’s Use of Basic Genre Features and Answers to Marginal Questions

O'Malley effectively uses the basic features of a proposal genre:

• A Focused, Well-Defined Problem: O'Malley clearly defines the problem as the negative psychological and cognitive impacts of "high-stakes exams" on students, leading to stress, poor performance, and inhibited learning. This problem is consistently referenced throughout the essay.

• A Well-Argued Solution: His solution – "brief exams at frequent intervals" – is clearly stated and thoroughly supported with evidence on how it improves learning, retention, study habits, and reduces anxiety.

• An Effective Response to Objections and Alternative Solutions: O'Malley dedicates significant sections to anticipate and counter professors' likely objections regarding time commitment for administration and grading. He also systematically critiques alternative solutions, demonstrating why they are less effective than his proposal.

• A Clear, Logical Organization: The essay is logically structured, moving from problem to solution, then detailing benefits, addressing counter-arguments, and concluding with a call to action. Transitional phrases such as "Moreover," "The main reason," "Another, closely related argument," and "Finally" help to guide the reader through the argument.

Here are the answers to the questions posed in the margins:

• What is the function of the opening paragraph? The opening paragraph (paragraph 3) functions to immediately immerse the reader in a relatable and high-stress scenario that many college students experience before a major exam. This creates an emotional connection and establishes the pervasive problem of anxiety associated with high-stakes exams.

• How does framing the problem this way set up the solution? Framing the problem with the vivid depiction of student anxiety and the "make or break" nature of high-stakes exams effectively sets up the solution by creating an urgent need for an alternative that can alleviate this stress and improve learning outcomes. It highlights the negative consequences that O'Malley's proposed frequent, low-stakes exams aim to remedy.

• How does O'Malley use the key terms introduced here throughout the essay? O'Malley effectively uses key terms such as "high-stakes exams," "anxiety," "stress," "cognitive systems," "performance," and "study" consistently throughout the essay. He uses them to define the problem (e.g., high-stakes exams cause stress and stunt cognitive systems) and to frame the benefits of his solution (e.g., frequent exams reduce anxiety, improve performance, and enhance study habits).

• What does par. 3 contribute to the argument? Paragraph 3 contributes to the argument by providing a powerful, personal, and emotional entry point into the essay. It grounds the academic discussion that follows in the real-world, often stressful, experience of a student, thereby strengthening the proposal's urgency and relevance.

• How effectively does O'Malley introduce this reason? What kinds of support does he offer? (Referring to paragraphs 4 and 5). O'Malley very effectively introduces the reason that high-stakes exams work against students' interests. He offers strong scientific support by reporting on recent research from Cornell University Medical School, citing Sian Beilock, a psychology professor at the University of Chicago, and referencing fMRI brain scans to show how stress negatively impacts performance and cognitive systems.

• How does O'Malley integrate and cite sources in pars. 4 and 5? In paragraphs 4 and 5, O'Malley integrates sources seamlessly into his argument by directly attributing findings to specific experts and institutions within the sentence structure. For example, he states, "Reporting on recent research... Sian Beilock... points out that..." and then provides direct quotes followed by clear APA-style citations (e.g., "Beilock, 2010"). This method makes the evidence feel like an integral part of his reasoning.

• How does O'Malley support this reason? Why does he include it? (Referring to paragraph 7, which discusses frequent exams leading to more learning and better performance). O'Malley supports the reason that frequent exams lead to more learning and better performance by citing a 2006 study in Psychological Science by Roediger and Karpicke, which found that "taking repeated tests on material leads to better long-term retention than repeated studying". He also refers to research by Karpicke and Blunt (2011) published in Science, which found testing more effective than traditional studying methods for comprehension and analysis. He includes this reason because it directly addresses the core educational goal of improving student learning and retention, providing robust, evidence-based justification for his proposal.

• How does O'Malley introduce and respond to this possible objection? (Referring to paragraph 18, about class time). O'Malley introduces the objection by stating it clearly: "Some believe that such exams take up too much of the limited class time available...". He responds by arguing that this time is "well spent" for "better learning and greater confidence" from the student's perspective. He also offers practical counter-solutions: reducing exam frequency (every other week), shortening their length (5-10 minutes), or designing quick multiple-choice questions.

• How effectively does O'Malley use this source? (General question referring to sources used in response to objections). In this section (paragraphs 18-19), O'Malley does not cite an external source directly to counter the "too much class time" objection. Instead, he uses logical reasoning and proposes concrete, practical adjustments to mitigate the issue. His argument hinges on the premise that the time invested leads to better learning, a claim supported by sources cited earlier in his essay. His effectiveness here comes from offering proactive solutions rather than relying solely on external citations.

• What is the purpose of this question? (Referring to the question at the end of paragraph 17: "Why, then, do so few professors give frequent brief exams?"). The purpose of this rhetorical question is to create a transition in the essay. It moves the argument from presenting the problem, solution, and its benefits to addressing the likely reasons for the status quo and common objections or alternative approaches. It signals that O'Malley is about to tackle potential challenges to his proposal, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

• How does O'Malley argue against possible objections in pars. 20 and 21? (The prompt's question referred to paragraphs 9 and 10 which is a likely typo, as paragraphs 20-21 address objections). In paragraphs 20 and 21, O'Malley argues against the objection that frequent exams take too much time to read and grade. He offers multiple practical solutions: professors could give exams every other week, make them very short, skim them for understanding rather than close reading, use non-numerical grades (plus/check/minus), collect them less frequently, rely on teaching assistants or readers, or use Scantron machines for multiple-choice exams.

• How effectively does O'Malley present alternative solutions in pars. 23, 24 and 25? (The prompt's question referred to paragraphs 11 and 12, which is a likely typo, as paragraphs 23-25 address alternative solutions). O'Malley very effectively presents and refutes alternative solutions by first describing them and then systematically explaining their shortcomings. For "study skills programs," he cites research indicating their ineffectiveness alone in reducing anxiety or improving performance, calling them "complicated, not to mention time-consuming and expensive". For "frequent study questions," he argues students might not complete them without being required to, making them akin to exams but less efficient for ensuring in-class individual work. For "providing sets of questions or topics in advance," he acknowledges some benefits but concludes it won't motivate regular study of new units and should be a complement, not a substitute. This methodical dismantling strengthens his own proposal.

• How do the highlighted words and phrases make the argument easy to follow? The use of transitional words and phrases (e.g., "Moreover," "The main reason," "Another, closely related argument," "Finally," "However," "One alternative solution," "Still another solution," "Furthermore") makes the argument easy to follow by providing clear signposts for the reader. These words indicate when O'Malley is adding a new point, shifting to an objection, presenting an alternative, or drawing a conclusion, thereby establishing a clear, logical flow and enhancing the essay's coherence.

• How effective is this conclusion? (Referring to paragraph 26). The conclusion (paragraph 26) is highly effective. It provides a strong, confident reiteration of O'Malley's central thesis, summarising the comprehensive benefits of frequent exams based on "the evidence and my talks with professors and students". The use of a memorable, slightly humorous analogy about "more parking spaces and a winning football team" effectively acknowledges that his solution isn't a "panacea" while still emphasizing its significant positive impact on college life. The final call to action, urging "Campus administrators" and "professors" to consider the change, makes the proposal feel actionable and ends on a hopeful and assertive note.

Here is a summary of the proposal, followed by a response to your other points:

Summary of the Proposal: "Later School Starts, Brighter Minds" by David Figlio

The proposal advocates for later school start times for middle and high school students as a low-cost, yet impactful, intervention to improve student performance.

• Biological Basis: The core argument rests on adolescent biology. Puberty causes a shift in nocturnal melatonin production, leading adolescents to naturally sleep later than younger children or adults. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends adolescents sleep until at least 8:00 A.M., yet half of all U.S. high schools start by this time, resulting in students losing up to two hours of sleep per night during the school year.

• Existing Evidence:

    ◦ An innovative study of U.S. Air Force Academy freshmen randomly assigned to earlier or later class times showed that early first-period classes significantly reduced achievement for that class and throughout the day.

    ◦ Case studies offer mixed results: Wake County, NC, saw improved test scores with later middle school start times, while Minneapolis's 90-minute shift later increased teacher-assigned grades and student well-being but not ACT scores.

• Key Research by Heissel and Norris: A major "just-published study" by Heissel and Norris is highlighted for its large-scale population-level data and strong external and internal validity, being the first to investigate the question across multiple institutions/districts.

    ◦ This study leveraged Florida's two time zones in the Panhandle, where students in the Central Time Zone experience more pre-school sunlight than those in the Eastern Time Zone due to how school start times account for the clock difference.

    ◦ The researchers tracked students who moved between these time zones, comparing their test performance before and after their move to isolate the effect of pre-school sunlight.

    ◦ Findings:

        ▪ For adolescents (girls around age 11+, boys around age 13+), an extra hour of pre-school sunlight improved math scores by eight percent and reading scores by six percent. Younger children saw a six percent increase in reading, but minimal change in math.

        ▪ These benefits were observed across a wide range of students, including boys and girls, white and non-white students (slightly higher effects for non-white), and affluent and disadvantaged students (somewhat higher effects for those not eligible for free/reduced-price lunches).

        ▪ Crucially, these improvements are attributed to increased cumulative learning over the school year, rather than just improved alertness on exam days.

• Policy Implications: Heissel and Norris's "thought exercise" suggested that optimising schedules by assigning earliest start times to elementary students, middle to middle schoolers, and latest to high schoolers could raise average math performance by six percent of a standard deviation and reading by four percent of a standard deviation. These are described as "extremely impressive for a policy change that would cost school districts little to implement".

• Potential Costs: The proposal acknowledges potential drawbacks, such as safety concerns for younger children traveling in the dark, implications for parents' childcare arrangements, and potential squeeze on high school after-school activities and sports. However, it concludes that aligning school start times with human biology remains a "quick win" for boosting learning at a very low cost.

Your Experience with High School Start Times

As an AI, I do not have personal experiences, health, or the capacity to be a student in the way humans do. Therefore, I cannot recall my own experience with high school start times or how they might have affected my health and performance. My responses are generated based solely on the information provided in the sources.

Reception of Figlio's Works-Cited List by His Original Audience

Given that David Figlio's proposal was "published originally on the Brookings Institution Web site in 2017", his original audience would likely consist of policymakers, researchers, educators, and the informed public interested in evidence-based policy solutions.

The number and type of sources cited in the "Works Cited" list would most likely have been received very positively by this audience for several reasons:

• Academic Credibility: The list features a substantial number of articles from reputable, peer-reviewed scholarly journals such as Journal of Human Resources (where Figlio himself is editor-in-chief), Pediatrics, New England Journal of Medicine, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, and Review of Economics and Statistics. This strong emphasis on academic research demonstrates a rigorous, evidence-based approach.

• Expert Authority: Citing reports and recommendations from authoritative bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics and data from the National Center for Education Statistics adds significant weight and professional endorsement to the biological and statistical claims.

• Comprehensive Support: The sources directly support the proposal's key arguments, from the biological basis for adolescent sleep patterns (e.g., Arendt, Carskadon et al.) to previous research on later start times (e.g., Jacob and Rockoff, Carrell et al., Edwards) and the pivotal "just-published study" by Heissel and Norris.

• Reinforcement of Figlio's Standing: Figlio's own credentials as a dean and professor who publishes in major scholarly journals are reinforced by the quality and depth of his bibliography. This shows he is not only an expert but also well-versed in the relevant research.

• Persuasiveness: For an audience seeking actionable policy recommendations, the extensive and high-quality citations would enhance the persuasiveness of the proposal, reassuring them that the suggested intervention is grounded in solid academic and scientific evidence. The inclusion of a "large-scale population-level data" study by Heissel and Norris, explicitly praised for its strong validity, would be particularly compelling.