People remember things better, longer, if they are given very challenging tests on the material, tests at which they are bound to fail. In a series of experiments, they showed that if students make an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve information before receiving an answer, they remember the information better than in a control condition in which they simply study the information. Trying and failing to retrieve the answer is actually helpful to learning. It’s an idea that has obvious applications for education, but could be useful for anyone who is trying to learn new material of any kind.
via Getting It Wrong: Surprising Tips on How to Learn: Scientific American.
What an interesting article – and one that resonates with what I have seen and experienced in my classroom. I want my assessments to be opportunities for learning, not benchmarks to meet. This is not that I think there is no place for ‘mastery assessment’ type tests, but I feel that the bulk of the assessments students get in class should be of the type that they can learn from. I think this is what, over the years has led to my quests, problem solving tests, or any other assessment where I have deliberately chosen challenging problems that I knew would push the kids.
I often make a judgement ahead of time (before grading, and often even before giving, a test) regarding the difficulty level of the questions I am using and plan a curve based on that. After the students take the test, and I grade it, I apply the curve. Most of the time this results in a spread of grades that I think reflects where the students are. Some times the spread is low, and I re-evaluate the curve. Questions I ask are:
- Did I underestimate the difficulty of the question(s)?
- Did I not prepare the students adequately for the questions asked?
- What types of errors were made?
- Were most errors on material they were to expect to have ‘mastered’ or was it on the newer material and/or applications?
Afterward I decide if I need to adjust the curve. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. It depends on the answers to the above (and other) questions. I never adjust the grades just to have a certain range of grades. If, after the curve, the grades are all A’s, I applaud the class and there prep and understanding. If they are all C’s (or lower) we have discussions about test prep, daily work, and other issues that may have contributed.
Is my method totally objective? I know it isn’t, but I am honest about that. I don’t think it is possible to have a totally objective test, although it is possible to consistently score a test. Even in what teachers think is a completely objective skill test, the choice of questions and the grading of each problem lets subjectivity creep in.
And I evaluate how I do each year and adjust.
22 October 2009 at 9:30 am |
I’m not sure I entirely agree with the idea that evaluations should be other than benchmarks. I think class work should be challenging, but by making the test either as challenging or more, I fear we are creating an environment of anxiety. Anxiety lowers most peoples self esteem and raises the affective filter: making it more difficult to retain things. I think classwork and even homework should be challenging, even to the point of potential “failing” but with teacher support. Then let the tests be a simpler affair.
22 October 2009 at 10:35 am |
The problem, in my mind, with tests that are “a simpler affair” is that these too easily become tests of regurgitation. I want students to demonstrate an ability to apply what they have learned, analyze it, even synthesize it in some way – to use several of Bloom’s levels. I certainly do not advocate tests that test students on things they would have no knowledge of, or would require them to essentially discover new mathematics, and I do not suggest that we test students on processes or concepts that they have not ample practice with in class. However, to create tests that reduce anxiety for all but the most struggling students would leave a test – in my opinion – almost devoid of anything other than recall, technique replication, or basic comprehension.