![\"I](\"http:\/\/farm4.static.flickr.com\/3052\/2554134479_1ece5189e5_m.jpg\" "\\"Exam\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Summer break has just begun. I managed to get away without any exams this semester, for the first time. In the past weeks, like every end of semester, I find myself thinking what an awful, ridiculous system these exams really are, especially in university. I’d like to try and articulate why.<\/p>\n
I can imagine a university where exams are hardly even relevant because people only study things they find interesting, and only so long as they are interested. Such places exist (take Tokyo Shure<\/a> for example).<\/p>\n However, most officially-recognized undegrad programs are still based on instructors providing students with pre-packaged chunks of information, and then judging whether each student has properly digested the information. This post will be about exams in that context; my point of reference will the linguistics BA program\u00a0at the University of Leipzig. As far as I know, it’s as good an example as any of a normal undergrad program in science.<\/p>\n So why are exams a bad idea<\/em> when you want to check whether a bunch of science undergrads understood what you taught them? Well, one part of the problem should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of science: exams are not very good experiments.<\/strong><\/em> There is no way to control for interference of irrelevant, extraneous factors<\/a>. When scientists conduct a study, in any field and with any methodology, they seek to control for irrelevant interferences. For example, when psychologists test hand-eye coordination, they’ll do something like only taking right-handed people with healthy hands and eyes, in order to make sure that the results aren’t skewed by irrelevant differences between individuals.<\/p>\n You can’t do anything like that in exams. For example, one of my exams once took place at a time when I was infatuated with someone. I spent about a quarter of the exam staring into blank space and thinking about things quite unrelated to linguistics. As you might expect, my grades for that semester were not spectacular. This was not a reflection of how well I understood the material in question, but rather a reflection of how capable I was of concentration at the time of the exam.<\/p>\n Not only can’t exams control for interference, they create<\/em> a strongly interfering, totally irrelevant factor: stress<\/em>.<\/p>\n Exams cause those who take them to get stressed out, usually for weeks in advance.<\/p>\n Google the words “stress” and “learning” together<\/a>. The first result I got (of some 25 million) was this site<\/a>, which says “Stress can disrupt learning and memory development”. Huh. That sounds like a great way to lower people’s performance on a test.<\/p>\n One obvious remedy is to train people so they’re used to taking tests and don’t get so stressed out. This is what traditional schools do, and perhaps why they do it.<\/p>\n For some reason, that really doesn’t work for most people. I’m guessing that the way schools make a big deal out of exams rather trains people to think exams are a big deal and worry about whether they’ll pass. What also doesn’t help much is that the resulting grades are relevant to one’s progress in a degree program as well as\u00a0one’s chances of getting accepted for further studies or a job.<\/p>\n But even if we accept that it’s schools’ job to prepare students for the stress of university exams, what are those exams preparing them for? Surely, it can’t be their future work as scientists. Exams are good preparation for bad science.<\/em><\/p>\n A scientist’s job is essentially the opposite of exam-taking.<\/p>\n Exam-taking<\/em> is swallowing a more experienced person’s presentation of information (course material), then regurgitating small bits of it as closely as possible to the original (“the right answers”). Science<\/em> is carefully considering information (raw data) and other people’s presentations of information (prior work), carefully deciding whether or not to swallow it, then, optionally, producing a novel presentation of the information (research), which is considered useless<\/em> if it’s in small bits that are exactly like they were when you got them.<\/p>\n The whole idea of one person telling the beginners how it is and expecting them to accept it<\/em> is bad science. Obviously, my instructors are far more experienced and knowledgeable than me in their respective fields. Still, it would not be very good if I accepted everything they taught me unquestioningly.<\/p>\n If I take my role as a budding scientist seriously, I should critically examine everything I am taught<\/em> and decide for myself whether I agree or disagree (and why). Exams tell me the opposite, and it takes real effort to continue thinking critically while I am expected to soon be able to reproduce the instructor’s view.<\/p>\n Worse still, in some introductory courses, the theory being taught is not perfect: instructors use simplified or “toy” versions of the theories being taught, or perhaps just a rather recent theory which is more a work in progress than the final word about anything. Either way, attentive students might notice inconsistencies or incoherences. This is good for undergrads; they can be inspired and take the theories further. That value is diminished by needing to swallow theories whole for a test.<\/p>\n I could probably think of another point or two against exams, but instead I will dedicate the end of this post to pointing out a few things that might make the situation better:<\/p>\n This is the most important thing, but also likely the most difficult.\u00a0Exam grades should not be available to anyone but the student and instructor. It might make sense to indicate on a degree whether the holder’s grades were consistently above average — this might potentially be an indication of extraordinary ability. But knowing that even the best exams are inaccurate and susceptible to extraneous variables, it does not make sense to prefer B students to C students.<\/p>\n Finding out I got a C on an exam doesn’t help me improve. Telling me what the weak and strong points of my exam were, could. I learned a lot on the few occasions where I’ve asked an instructor to go over the exam and tell me what my mistakes were. This value as a learning tool is wasted by not presenting all exam takers with feedback. (Some instructors do this, but all<\/em> should.)<\/p>\n If the goal of exams is to give feedback, then save it for those who want it. Mandatory exams create unnecessary stress. There are plenty of other ways to run a system like the modular European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System<\/a>,\u00a0in which it is essential to judge whether a student really took part in their courses.<\/p>\n Writing a term paper takes more effort than writing an exam, but you learn new things from it and experience something akin to actual academic work. Some disciplines have other “simulations” of real work which could be graded as tests. Sure, this requires more effort per test from the staff, but grading something other than an exam may be a welcome change. And perhaps a system could be created where more advanced students grade beginners’ work and get graded for their grading work (being real academic work practice itself).<\/p>\nExams are bad experiments<\/h3>\n
Exam stress: an antidote for learning<\/h3>\n
Exams are bad science<\/h3>\n
Some suggestions<\/h3>\n
Abolish the importance of exam grades.<\/h4>\n
Make feedback the goal of all exams.<\/h4>\n
Make some or all exams optional.<\/h4>\n
Replace some exams with real work.<\/h4>\n
Filter students in conversation, not testing.<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/pixy.gif?x-id=67a0b7e0-a8b7-42d1-8ad0-d49d1b60975e\")
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"