David Jaffee bashes the idea of studying for exams:
According to those who study the science of human learning, it occurs only when there is both retention and transfer. Retention involves the ability to actually remember what was presumably "learned" more than two weeks beyond the end of the term. Transfer is the ability to use and apply that knowledge for subsequent understanding and analysis. Based on this definition, there is not much learning taking place in college courses.
One reason is that learning is equated with studying for exams and, for many students, studying for exams means "cramming." A growing amount of research literature consistently reports that cramming—short-term memorizing—does not contribute to retention or transfer. It may, however, yield positive short-term results as measured by exam scores. So, as long as we have relatively high-stakes exams determining a large part of the final grade in a course, students will cram for exams, and there will be very little learning.
Michael Cholbi tempers Joffee's position:
[N]ot all exams are cut from the same cloth. If students can succeed at all with an exam by cramming, that's a lousy exam. I take care to try to create evaluative instruments that don't reward such superficial knowledge. Likewise, we should probably broadcast to students that "studying" for exams is no substitute for studying period, or for developing the intellectual habits that lead to mastery.
The Dish 