In praise of working slowly

Speed is treated as a proxy for ability in almost every classroom. The student who finishes first is assumed to understand best. Sometimes that is true. Frequently it measures something else entirely.

Research on problem-solving finds that stronger performers often spend longer before beginning. They read the question twice, identify what kind of problem it is, and consider which method applies. Weaker performers begin immediately, because beginning feels like progress and reading again feels like delay. The time saved at the start is lost several times over in the middle.

There is a second reason speed misleads. A timed test rewards automatic recall, which is a genuine skill but a narrow one. It penalises the student who notices an ambiguity in the question, because noticing costs seconds and the mark scheme gives nothing for it. Over several years of such tests, students learn not to notice, and unlearning that in a university seminar is painful.

None of this argues for abolishing timed work. Many real tasks have deadlines and some have genuine time pressure. The argument is narrower: speed should be one measure among several rather than the default signal of who is good at a subject.

A teacher can change this cheaply. Ask for the method before the answer. Give marks for the clearest explanation rather than the first hand up. Occasionally set a problem with no time limit and an expectation of three attempts. None of these costs money, and each one tells a conscientious slow thinker that the room has space for them.