Tests
In the academic setting, tests are a means of evaluating a student's understanding of a particular topic. Tests are usually written, and carried out under time-restricted and stringent environments, and have become something that students dread. In this post, I'd like to propose a different (though not necessarily more practical) method of testing students and evaluating their performance.
Here's the idea: the tests are carried out orally and in-person, one-on-one student to teacher. The teacher offers a problem to the student and asks the student to walk the teacher through how one would go about solving the problem. For example, if the problem is 2+2=?, the teacher would first present the problem to the student and ask him/her to solve it. The student would then proceed to explain from start to finish, how to solve the problem. The student might start by identifying the type of problem, and choosing a particular method to solve it. If the student falters, or is unable to answer the question, the teacher may give the student a hint and a stepping stone to help the student. This form of test taking would be centered around helping the student learn.
Such a test is more personal, and would truly aim to test mastery rather than ability to earn high test scores. It also minimizes the chances and motivation for cheating, since students are taking the test in a more personal environment, one where it would be harder to find the answer without truly knowing it. The teacher would easily be able to find out.
The most obvious disadvantage to this style of test-taking is the amount of time required to evaluate students. Because this style of test is one-on-one, more teacher-hours would be required to fully measure students' performance in a classroom. Another downside is the subjectivity. Implicit bias between teachers and students may put a student at a disadvantage. In addition, teachers are human, which adds another layer of error that could possibly skew the scoring of such tests.
Here's the idea: the tests are carried out orally and in-person, one-on-one student to teacher. The teacher offers a problem to the student and asks the student to walk the teacher through how one would go about solving the problem. For example, if the problem is 2+2=?, the teacher would first present the problem to the student and ask him/her to solve it. The student would then proceed to explain from start to finish, how to solve the problem. The student might start by identifying the type of problem, and choosing a particular method to solve it. If the student falters, or is unable to answer the question, the teacher may give the student a hint and a stepping stone to help the student. This form of test taking would be centered around helping the student learn.
Such a test is more personal, and would truly aim to test mastery rather than ability to earn high test scores. It also minimizes the chances and motivation for cheating, since students are taking the test in a more personal environment, one where it would be harder to find the answer without truly knowing it. The teacher would easily be able to find out.
The most obvious disadvantage to this style of test-taking is the amount of time required to evaluate students. Because this style of test is one-on-one, more teacher-hours would be required to fully measure students' performance in a classroom. Another downside is the subjectivity. Implicit bias between teachers and students may put a student at a disadvantage. In addition, teachers are human, which adds another layer of error that could possibly skew the scoring of such tests.
Comments