The Inflated Importance of Processing Speed

Since the initial COVID lockdowns, many of us have come to agree with the belief that time is a social construct. What even is time, anyway? What year is it?

However, there is one place that time is still quite revered: the classroom. Deadlines are paramount. Knowledge on tests can only be demonstrated within a given time period on a certain day. Graduate students have to answer questions promptly (and accurately, of course!) in high-stakes oral defense meetings. Even some intelligence tests include processing speed as part of overall IQ scores.

This isn’t to say processing speed – how fast a person can think, reason, and problem-solve – is useless. There are plenty of situations and careers that require quick thinking. We value nurses, pilots, and firefighters that can make fast, safe, and accurate decisions in emergencies. That being said, I am of the belief that strict time limits are not necessary to demonstrate learning. In fact, I think that, far too often, timed tests interfere with student performance by increasing stress and anxiety.

Years ago, I was conducting IQ assessments for children as part of a parental education program that one of my graduate advisors was leading. One of my participants was a young boy, perhaps 10, who took for-ev-er to answer questions. He would sit and think and say “hmmm” for several minutes before providing each response. Luckily for this kid, the particular measurement we were using did not have time limits. So I sat. And I waited. And I came back the next week to finish the test, because the kid had not finished answering questions by the time the parent event was over the first night.

And the kid ended up with an IQ score of 130.

This is obviously an N of 1, but it’s a pretty solid example of how processing speed does not equal knowledge. If we give students enough time (or even just more time), they might be able to show us more of what they’ve learned.

There are plenty of issues with the use of timed tests to assess student learning. In order to do well on a timed assignment (particularly one done in person, in a classroom), students must demonstrate knowledge of the material, sufficient directed attention to block out any distractions (either in the classroom or internal), time management, emotional management, and physical health and dexterity to sit still for the time it takes to complete the test in the required format. But even beyond all of that, by limiting assessment to what knowledge students correctly display on a timed exam, we as instructors are essentially saying “It doesn’t matter how much you’ve learned; it matters how fast you can process questions and recall your knowledge.”

I certainly understand that no instructor is going to be able to eliminate timed assignments completely. People teaching large classes are less likely to have the time to grade a lot of essays or other written/spoken assignments, so true/false and multiple choice options on quizzes or tests are an efficient way of assessing factual knowledge. Additionally, for instructors who use timed tests, having time students take those exams during class time (rather than on their own time) can help combat cheating by having a controlled environment and human observers. All of these are valid concerns.

However, think back to that kid. If you have the capacity, I strongly encourage phasing out timed exams for more open-ended questions and written/spoken/creative assignments. Let students take their time to think, process, and respond. You might just be surprised at how much you’ve taught them.