Heavy Drilling Rarely Helps
- Learning a test’s format, timing, and answer sheet produces a modest, measurable score gain.
- Heavy content drilling and repeated full-length practice tests add far less than most parents assume.
- Commercial test-prep programs have overstated their own results compared to independent research for decades.
- A short amount of format practice covers most of the benefit prep can offer.
- Over-preparation can crowd out the class time children need to learn the material being tested.
Two different activities share one label
“Test prep” covers two very different activities, and they get lumped together under one label. One is learning how a test works: its timing, its answer format, the way questions are structured.
The other is trying to master the underlying content through repeated drilling and full mock exams. The first has solid support behind it. The second delivers far less than parents and test-prep companies tend to assume.
Format Familiarization Removes Points Lost to the Test Itself
What format familiarization covers
Format familiarization means walking children through what a test looks like before test day. That includes how long each section runs and how answers get marked on the sheet.
It also covers what the different question types look like. It covers whether the test runs on paper or on a screen. None of this teaches new content. It removes the points children lose simply because the format caught them off guard.
Calming nerves and raising a score are different goals
Familiarity with a test’s format eases one specific kind of worry: not knowing what to expect. Children who have timed a section and filled in a sample answer sheet walk in with fewer unknowns.
Practicing how to skip a hard question and return to it adds another layer of that same comfort. That kind of light preparation earns its place even for children who already know the material well.
Cramming content aims at raising the score
Cramming content in the final week aims at raising the score itself. Any calming effect on nerves is incidental. Treating the two goals as one activity leads to anxious late nights spent on content review. A short format session would have done more for confidence instead.
A young learner and a teenager both need this
A seven-year-old sitting a first standardized test benefits from knowing what a bubble sheet is. Knowing how much time each section allows helps just as much. A teenager preparing for an admissions test benefits from the same idea applied to a longer, more complex exam.
The mechanism is the same at every age. Children perform worse when the format itself is unfamiliar, regardless of how well they know the material being tested.
Test-taking skill instruction drives most of the gain
Direct instruction in test-taking skills accounts for most of the benefit test prep provides. That means teaching children to manage time and use elimination strategies on multiple-choice questions.
Preparation that includes this training produces meaningfully larger score gains than preparation that leaves it out. This is a mechanical skill children can learn in a short amount of time.
Why the skill transfers so easily
Time management and answer-sheet mechanics do not depend on the subject being tested. Children who learn to pace a reading section pace a math section the same way.
That is why the benefit shows up consistently across different tests and different age groups. It is a skill.
Heavy Drilling Delivers Less Than Parents Expect
Repeated practice tests add little on their own
A 2025 review of experimental test-prep studies compared different types of preparation programs head to head. Programs built around repeated full-length practice tests produced smaller score gains than programs built around other methods.
Piling on broad content only loosely tied to the test format performed worse still. In some cases scores dropped slightly compared to no extra preparation at all.
Repetition is not the same as learning
Repetition alone does not teach children anything new about the test or the material. Children can sit through a fifth practice exam and perform almost the same as they did on the first one.
The score plateaus because the exercise stopped adding information. Time spent this way competes directly with time spent reviewing the actual subject.
Commercial claims have outpaced the evidence for decades
This gap between assumption and evidence is not new. Independent research on SAT coaching dates back to the late 1990s. It put the combined gain at roughly 21 to 34 points across verbal and math.
Two of the largest test-prep companies at the time claimed gains of 120 and 140 points. The gap came down to how each side counted results.
Retesting gains got counted as the coaching effect
Coaching companies counted the ordinary score rise from taking a test twice as their own effect. Children retest better than they test the first time, prep or no prep.
Independent studies control for that rise. What is left over, after accounting for practice and normal growth, is a modest but measurable benefit from coaching.
The same gap shows up in newer prep tools
A 2020 study of a widely used official SAT practice tool compared learners by hours spent practicing. Those who logged six or more hours scored about 21 points higher than those who logged none. Combining that practice with certain study habits pushed the gap to roughly 39 points.
The researchers were careful about what that gap means. They wrote plainly that the study could not rule out self-selection. Motivated learners who put in more hours may have scored higher regardless of the practice itself.
Practice questions can still teach content well
None of this means practice questions are useless. Using questions to test children’s memory of material, then reviewing what they missed, helps children learn and hold onto content.
The distinction is intention. Quizzing on content to learn the content works well. Taking repeated full mock exams once the format is already familiar adds little beyond that.
The difference between a quiz and a mock exam
A short quiz on last week’s material, followed by review of what was missed, strengthens memory of that content. A full-length timed mock exam mainly measures where children currently stand.
The first builds knowledge. The second mostly reports on knowledge that already exists.
Reasonable Format Prep Is Short and Specific
A small, focused amount covers most of the benefit
One or two sessions in the weeks before a test cover most of the benefit. That means walking through how long each section runs, how the answer sheet works, and what the question types are.
A single timed practice section close to test day helps children get used to the pacing. Beyond that point, added format practice produces smaller and smaller returns.
What a good session includes
A useful format session walks through one full section under timing, then reviews the answer sheet together. It covers how to skip a hard question and return to it later.
It ends there. The rest of the time before a test is better spent on the subject material the test is measuring.
How long each session should run
A useful session runs 30 to 45 minutes. That is long enough for one timed section and a walk-through of the answer sheet afterward. Much shorter, and the timed practice gets skipped. Much longer, and the session starts to blur into a full mock exam.
Spread across the final two weeks, that adds up to well under two hours total. Families do not need a standing weekly practice block on the calendar for months beforehand.
Format prep timing follows the calendar
Format prep works best scheduled close to the test date. The goal is a fresh, specific memory of how the test runs. A session held a month early gets forgotten by test day.
Two shorter sessions, spaced a week apart near the test, tend to work better than one long one.
Over-Preparation Looks Different From Format Practice
Signs prep has moved past the useful point
Over-preparation runs for weeks rather than a session or two. It centers on repeated full practice tests rather than a short walkthrough of the format.
It starts replacing regular class time or sleep instead of sitting alongside them. Extra sessions stop producing any change in practice scores, yet they continue anyway.
How children respond matters more than the number of sessions
A better marker than the calendar is how children respond to the preparation. Confidence in the format is a good sign preparation has done its job.
Rising stress with no matching rise in scores points to the opposite. At that stage, time is better spent on rest or the subject material.
What crowding out looks like in practice
A learner spending three evenings a week on practice exams has three fewer evenings for regular schoolwork or rest. That trade rarely favors the practice exams.
The subject material tested on a standardized test is usually the same material covered in class all year. Time is generally better spent there.
This measures whether prep moves the score
Some children feel genuine distress around testing regardless of how much or how little they prepare. That response runs on a separate track from whether prep works, and calls for its own approach.
This is about whether the preparation itself moves the score. For most children, a small amount of format practice does the job prep is meant to do.
Keeping Prep in Proportion
Standardized test prep works when it stays small and specific. A short walkthrough of timing, format, and the answer sheet removes points children would otherwise lose to unfamiliarity alone.
Weeks of drilling and repeated mock exams rarely add much beyond that. They often take time away from the subject learning that moves a score.
Firefly Ed runs academic classes, workshops, and events for children ages 3 to 14. It also publishes a library of articles for parents, teens, and young adults.
Research Sources
Test Preparation and Score Gains
Hao, Z., Baird, J.-A., El Masri, Y.H., & Double, K. (2025). The Impact of Test Preparation on Performance of Large-Scale Educational Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Review of Educational Research.
Coaching Claims Versus Independent Findings
Powers, D.E., & Rock, D.A. (1999). Effects of Coaching on SAT I: Reasoning Test Scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(2), 93-118.
Practice Testing and Content Learning
Adesope, O.O., Trevisan, D.A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701.
Modern Test-Prep Tools and Self-Selection
Weatherholtz, K., Grimaldi, P., Hicks, C., Hill, K.M., et al. (2020). Use of Khan Academy Official SAT Practice and SAT Achievement: An Observational Study. College Board.
Share your thoughts or ask something..