Your Company Name Here
Tests as learning tools
What is a test exactly? I’ve had teachers who refused to refer them as tests or exams or even quizzes. For some
teachers this was a bizarre effort to calm the students, an attempt to eliminate test anxiety. Strangely enough calling a
test by a different name would occasionally accomplish this goal. These tests that were not called tests were referred to
as knowledge assessments, knowledge demonstrations, quests, skills assessments, cumulative reviews and any number
of other euphemisms based around knowledge and quantifiable standards.
The thing about calling a test by something other than its name is that it could change the meaning of the test. Or
rather it should change the meaning of the test. A knowledge assessment gives the impression that the teacher is trying
to find out what you know, implying that what you don’t know will be taught to you. Although in reality what you don’t know
is what you are punished for but never taught again. A knowledge demonstration implies that you are able to spill onto a
page whatever you learned, perhaps in a practical way or perhaps in just a free way where you can actually demonstrate
the extent of your knowledge. Some tests are actually like that but most I’ve taken are highly structured and tests specific
tidbits of knowledge rather than your knowledge as a whole.
So assuming that there are different forms of tests and these tests may serve different purposes there is one
purpose that tests do not seem to serve very often at all and that is using the test as a learning tool. In my experience
taking a test is one of the ways I learn best. Generally speaking I’m not a very good studier. In fact I’m terrible at
studying. I don’t retain information very well through classic studying. But I’m a good test taker and one of my greatest
strengths is my ability to learn during the test. In this sense my test is an assessment of my learning right up to the
moment I turn in my test as opposed to when I sit down to start the test.
But my learning does not stop there. When I took Calculus in high school my teacher had a fairly unique approach, which
was good because my class would not have responded to a more classical math teaching structure. I went to a high
achieving high school where you had no choice but to take Calculus as a senior and the AB class was the lowest level
you could take. That’s the class I was in. We were all seniors who were not especially into math but we were also all
gifted enough to do decently. Of course being seniors and not being interested in the subject we were not going to try
very hard to learn the subject. I don’t know how aware of this my teacher was but regardless she did an amazing job.
First of all, and perhaps most shocking, was that we only had homework one day the entire year and that was the first
day. This was perfect because homework in math had long ago become a waste of time for those of us who had spent
the previous three years sliding our way through math. Instead she would do a problem on the board and then give us
practice problems. Then she would do the practice problems with us on the board also. We would passively pay
attention but also socialize and generally have a pretty good time.
When we took the tests most of us did badly, which actually ended up being a good thing. After we got out tests back we
did test corrections, primarily in class, and we got half back on test corrections. This guaranteed that we would actually
do the corrections because none of us wanted a C or a D in calc. We were aiming more for the B or B+ range. Doing
the test corrections, after I had already proven to myself that I had no idea what I was doing, was when I really started to
learn. Watching my teacher do the problems on the board was a good foundation while I figured out what I didn’t know on
my test. Finally we had our midterm which was worth a large portion of our grade. By the time I took the midterm I had
been exposed to all the problems at least four times: teacher doing the problem, practice problems teacher did, test, test
corrections. All without doing any homework or studying. On the midterm I suddenly knew everything, definitely way more
than I thought I knew. I ended up getting over 100% on the midterm and got the highest grade in any AB Calculus class.
The rest of my class did well also. This is the best example I’ve ever experience of using the tests as a teaching tool.
Without doing poorly on those tests I would never have learned. Without those test corrections I would never have
learned. It was because she was focused more on learning than on testing that I was successful. And if we are focused
on learning instead of something else like signaling or achievement, then that is how tests should be. Obviously in this
scenario there was an endpoint in the midterm and that’s fine. At some point you have to know if you have mastered a
concept or not. But I think it is important to realize that the first test or any test does not have to be and probably should
not be the endpoint of learning.
Now if you start to think of tests as learning tools it really changes your perspective on things. In fact it changes
everything. If the point is to learn and not to achieve on a test then our conception of grades and cheating and the entire
learning process are different. For example, in college there are a lot of take home tests. Most people I know do not take
these take homes completely honestly. Most do not consider what they do cheating either. They will take a peek at their
notes for a date, or look online for a name, small things that would be considered cheating. But most good take home
tests are not tests where you can look up the answer. So if you learn by looking up and writing into your answer then have
you cheated? Well yes. But you have also learned what you were supposed to learn. So is that wrong? Depends on
who you ask. If the point is to learn then no you really haven’t but there is so much more to tests than learning. After all
you are also competing against your peers to succeed and be appealing to employers.
To take it even further, cheating in general takes on a new meaning if you are able to replicate what you learned while
cheating. In a lot of ways the act of cheating is a great way to learn. That is why I’ve had teachers who were great
proponents of allowing “cheat sheets” because by writing down all the content you could onto a piece of paper you didn’t
even need the paper anymore. You had learned everything by writing it down. So if you start a test and don’t know
anything and then cheat and by the end you know everything where do you stand? In one sense you succeeded in
learning, which is supposed to be the point. But you also broke the rules. Now I’m not advocating cheating and I am not a
cheater, if only because I’m mostly too lazy to cheat and wouldn’t trust anyone else over myself to do my work. It is
interesting to think about though.
What is a test exactly? I’ve had teachers who refused to refer them as tests or exams or even quizzes. For some
teachers this was a bizarre effort to calm the students, an attempt to eliminate test anxiety. Strangely enough calling a
test by a different name would occasionally accomplish this goal. These tests that were not called tests were referred to
as knowledge assessments, knowledge demonstrations, quests, skills assessments, cumulative reviews and any number
of other euphemisms based around knowledge and quantifiable standards.
The thing about calling a test by something other than its name is that it could change the meaning of the test. Or
rather it should change the meaning of the test. A knowledge assessment gives the impression that the teacher is trying
to find out what you know, implying that what you don’t know will be taught to you. Although in reality what you don’t know
is what you are punished for but never taught again. A knowledge demonstration implies that you are able to spill onto a
page whatever you learned, perhaps in a practical way or perhaps in just a free way where you can actually demonstrate
the extent of your knowledge. Some tests are actually like that but most I’ve taken are highly structured and tests specific
tidbits of knowledge rather than your knowledge as a whole.
So assuming that there are different forms of tests and these tests may serve different purposes there is one
purpose that tests do not seem to serve very often at all and that is using the test as a learning tool. In my experience
taking a test is one of the ways I learn best. Generally speaking I’m not a very good studier. In fact I’m terrible at
studying. I don’t retain information very well through classic studying. But I’m a good test taker and one of my greatest
strengths is my ability to learn during the test. In this sense my test is an assessment of my learning right up to the
moment I turn in my test as opposed to when I sit down to start the test.
But my learning does not stop there. When I took Calculus in high school my teacher had a fairly unique approach, which
was good because my class would not have responded to a more classical math teaching structure. I went to a high
achieving high school where you had no choice but to take Calculus as a senior and the AB class was the lowest level
you could take. That’s the class I was in. We were all seniors who were not especially into math but we were also all
gifted enough to do decently. Of course being seniors and not being interested in the subject we were not going to try
very hard to learn the subject. I don’t know how aware of this my teacher was but regardless she did an amazing job.
First of all, and perhaps most shocking, was that we only had homework one day the entire year and that was the first
day. This was perfect because homework in math had long ago become a waste of time for those of us who had spent
the previous three years sliding our way through math. Instead she would do a problem on the board and then give us
practice problems. Then she would do the practice problems with us on the board also. We would passively pay
attention but also socialize and generally have a pretty good time.
When we took the tests most of us did badly, which actually ended up being a good thing. After we got out tests back we
did test corrections, primarily in class, and we got half back on test corrections. This guaranteed that we would actually
do the corrections because none of us wanted a C or a D in calc. We were aiming more for the B or B+ range. Doing
the test corrections, after I had already proven to myself that I had no idea what I was doing, was when I really started to
learn. Watching my teacher do the problems on the board was a good foundation while I figured out what I didn’t know on
my test. Finally we had our midterm which was worth a large portion of our grade. By the time I took the midterm I had
been exposed to all the problems at least four times: teacher doing the problem, practice problems teacher did, test, test
corrections. All without doing any homework or studying. On the midterm I suddenly knew everything, definitely way more
than I thought I knew. I ended up getting over 100% on the midterm and got the highest grade in any AB Calculus class.
The rest of my class did well also. This is the best example I’ve ever experience of using the tests as a teaching tool.
Without doing poorly on those tests I would never have learned. Without those test corrections I would never have
learned. It was because she was focused more on learning than on testing that I was successful. And if we are focused
on learning instead of something else like signaling or achievement, then that is how tests should be. Obviously in this
scenario there was an endpoint in the midterm and that’s fine. At some point you have to know if you have mastered a
concept or not. But I think it is important to realize that the first test or any test does not have to be and probably should
not be the endpoint of learning.
Now if you start to think of tests as learning tools it really changes your perspective on things. In fact it changes
everything. If the point is to learn and not to achieve on a test then our conception of grades and cheating and the entire
learning process are different. For example, in college there are a lot of take home tests. Most people I know do not take
these take homes completely honestly. Most do not consider what they do cheating either. They will take a peek at their
notes for a date, or look online for a name, small things that would be considered cheating. But most good take home
tests are not tests where you can look up the answer. So if you learn by looking up and writing into your answer then have
you cheated? Well yes. But you have also learned what you were supposed to learn. So is that wrong? Depends on
who you ask. If the point is to learn then no you really haven’t but there is so much more to tests than learning. After all
you are also competing against your peers to succeed and be appealing to employers.
To take it even further, cheating in general takes on a new meaning if you are able to replicate what you learned while
cheating. In a lot of ways the act of cheating is a great way to learn. That is why I’ve had teachers who were great
proponents of allowing “cheat sheets” because by writing down all the content you could onto a piece of paper you didn’t
even need the paper anymore. You had learned everything by writing it down. So if you start a test and don’t know
anything and then cheat and by the end you know everything where do you stand? In one sense you succeeded in
learning, which is supposed to be the point. But you also broke the rules. Now I’m not advocating cheating and I am not a
cheater, if only because I’m mostly too lazy to cheat and wouldn’t trust anyone else over myself to do my work. It is
interesting to think about though.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
ParadoxLife
| Help The Cause Fund Our Food |