You may not like them, you may not enjoy them, but have you ever stopped and asked the question – what are exams actually for? Because until you answer that question, you can’t argue that they do or don’t work. If you want to claim that exams are a bad way to achieve some goal and should be changed, you have to first decide that goal they are supposed to be achieving in the first place.
The first ‘exams’ were really competitions to decide who should gain a prestigious job – the ancient Chinese Imperial court used various tests of ‘noble arts’ to choose from between many bright eager young men who wanted to become civil servants. They were introduced as a fairer system than the earlier system of patronage – who you and your family knew. This is the first purpose of exams - a fairer way of choosing people, which is still used in job application.
In mediaeval universities, students who had completed a course of study would be ‘examined’ by a formal interview (like the modern day via voca or oral exam). The purpose of these examinations was to demonstrate expertise – to show that a person had reached a standard. This is the second purpose of exams – demonstration of expertise, which is still used in for example, the driving test.
In the twentieth century, examinations became more and more commonly used. The introduction of IQ testing and 11-plus selection produced a concept borrowed from industrial quality testing – a statistical prediction approach. The idea here is to take a sample of a person’s performance, and use it to predict how they will perform in the future. This presupposes that people’s behaviour at one time predicts their behaviour in future – if you are intellectually bright at the age of 10, you are more likely to be bright at 15, 35 and 50. So this is the third purpose of exams – prediction.
Finally, why do teachers sometimes tell their students ‘There’s be a test on this’, or why do some (more dedicated!) students actually do the tests at the end of book chapters? It’s because it helps to provide a motivator for study. That’s why Weight Watchers groups have weekly weigh-ins, to provide feedback and motivation. So this is the final purpose of exams – as a teaching tool.
So now if you want to moan about exams being rubbish (and there is lots to moan about – exams are by no means perfect!), at least you can ask what exams are supposed to do, and then test whether or not they actually do what they’re supposed to do. Yes, let’s examine the exams!
28 Feb 2008
22 Feb 2008
Is media studies a ‘soft subject’?
According to the Independent and Guardian newspapers today, a report has backed-up some popular prejudices by showing that an A-level in media studies is easier than one in a ‘proper’ subject like English. Certain subjects, like media studies are therefore dubbed ‘soft’ as opposed to the hard subjects like maths and English.
Of course the report by the QCA says no such thing, it says that A-levels are of roughly similar levels of challenge, but recognises how difficult it is to compare different subjects in terms of difficulty using exam scripts, especially when 40% of the marks in media studies are based on course work, not the final exam.
What critics want, I believe, is to have their cake and eat it! A-levels are supposed to demonstrate what a person has learnt over the 2 years of study, and to allow selectors (employers or universities) to choose between different candidates. However, for the selection process, people want to be able to compare who is ‘better’ and who is ‘worse’ – hence the drive to be able to compare subjects. The idea is that someone with AAB, in any subjects, must be ‘better’ or ‘cleverer’ than someone with CCC, in any subjects. This harks back to Spearman’s concept of g or general intelligence, a sort of intellectual horsepower that is supposed to be at the basis of human ability. Why not just have a single IQ test for everyone taking A-level? Critics want to have different subjects which recognise diversity, but to have homogenous standards of comparison.
But people aren’t that simple – they have different talents, which is the point of having different exam subjects. A-levels are a step up from IQ testing, because they do give people a chance to demonstrate their ability to use their intelligence in an area where they have interest and talent. But does it make sense to say I am better at maths than you are at French? I think that this is really down to snobbery – ‘media studies’ is the new sociology.
Every generation wants to believe that the young people of today are fickle and lazy, so if they get good results, it must be because the exams are easier. Or as Socrates (469–399 B.C.) is supposed to have said (actually he probably didn’t say this, but it’s still a great quote!):
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
Of course the report by the QCA says no such thing, it says that A-levels are of roughly similar levels of challenge, but recognises how difficult it is to compare different subjects in terms of difficulty using exam scripts, especially when 40% of the marks in media studies are based on course work, not the final exam.
What critics want, I believe, is to have their cake and eat it! A-levels are supposed to demonstrate what a person has learnt over the 2 years of study, and to allow selectors (employers or universities) to choose between different candidates. However, for the selection process, people want to be able to compare who is ‘better’ and who is ‘worse’ – hence the drive to be able to compare subjects. The idea is that someone with AAB, in any subjects, must be ‘better’ or ‘cleverer’ than someone with CCC, in any subjects. This harks back to Spearman’s concept of g or general intelligence, a sort of intellectual horsepower that is supposed to be at the basis of human ability. Why not just have a single IQ test for everyone taking A-level? Critics want to have different subjects which recognise diversity, but to have homogenous standards of comparison.
But people aren’t that simple – they have different talents, which is the point of having different exam subjects. A-levels are a step up from IQ testing, because they do give people a chance to demonstrate their ability to use their intelligence in an area where they have interest and talent. But does it make sense to say I am better at maths than you are at French? I think that this is really down to snobbery – ‘media studies’ is the new sociology.
Every generation wants to believe that the young people of today are fickle and lazy, so if they get good results, it must be because the exams are easier. Or as Socrates (469–399 B.C.) is supposed to have said (actually he probably didn’t say this, but it’s still a great quote!):
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
19 Feb 2008
Oral exams and sloppy thinking on exams
A recent story in the press about a proposal to substitute oral exams for continual assessment in foreign language exams raised a lot of hackles! The trouble with this kind of thing is that people see headlines and opinions, and comment from there, rather than go back to primary sources, and see what is actually being proposed. So I thought it would be useful to see that the original Dearing Report (2007), actually said. And there it was in section 3.22:
We also proposed a new approach to the assessment of speaking and listening, which rightly account for half the marks in the GCSE, on the grounds that the present method is too stressful and too short to be a reliable way of assessing what the candidates can do. It is interesting that when people spoke about the oral test, that however long ago it may have been, it is often remembered as a stressful experience. We therefore proposed that these parts of the examination should be over a period through moderated teacher assessment.
The Dearing report states that oral exams are stressful - well, yes exams are stressful, but the implication here is that they are unnecessarily stressful, and put people off taking language at GCSE and A-level. Secondly it is asserted that they are too short to accurately assess language skills. I haven't read the full report, but from my quick scan, it seems that these assertions are not justified. Research shows that the predictive value of exams rises quite quickly in the first few questions, and that a plateau is quickly reached after which further assessment yields very little new information about the candidate. Are oral exams too short, or do their results correlate well with other measures of linguistic ability? And how do we know that a stressful exam causes people to change their subject choices - it seems plausible, but is it what actually happens?
To my mind the real issue here is sloppy thinking in educational policy, which justifiably wants to encourage more people to study languages, but makes unjustified assertions. This seems to me to post-hoc justification of pre-determined decisions, rather than evidence-based policy making. So in this case the commentary does have something substantive to complain about – but let’s check things out before getting hot under the collars, eh?
We also proposed a new approach to the assessment of speaking and listening, which rightly account for half the marks in the GCSE, on the grounds that the present method is too stressful and too short to be a reliable way of assessing what the candidates can do. It is interesting that when people spoke about the oral test, that however long ago it may have been, it is often remembered as a stressful experience. We therefore proposed that these parts of the examination should be over a period through moderated teacher assessment.
The Dearing report states that oral exams are stressful - well, yes exams are stressful, but the implication here is that they are unnecessarily stressful, and put people off taking language at GCSE and A-level. Secondly it is asserted that they are too short to accurately assess language skills. I haven't read the full report, but from my quick scan, it seems that these assertions are not justified. Research shows that the predictive value of exams rises quite quickly in the first few questions, and that a plateau is quickly reached after which further assessment yields very little new information about the candidate. Are oral exams too short, or do their results correlate well with other measures of linguistic ability? And how do we know that a stressful exam causes people to change their subject choices - it seems plausible, but is it what actually happens?
To my mind the real issue here is sloppy thinking in educational policy, which justifiably wants to encourage more people to study languages, but makes unjustified assertions. This seems to me to post-hoc justification of pre-determined decisions, rather than evidence-based policy making. So in this case the commentary does have something substantive to complain about – but let’s check things out before getting hot under the collars, eh?
14 Feb 2008
It’s Valentine’s Day – love your examiners!
Examiners are a much maligned breed. Along with traffic wardens, and tax inspectors, nobody seems to love them. Well it’s Valentines Day today, so how about giving them a hug?
OK, maybe not literally, but at least metaphorically. When you've struggled to learn your subject, you've revised till you're cross-eyed, and you're sat in front of that awful piece of paper and told to 'Turn over your papers', it's kind of difficult to feel much love, or even charity to the rotten beggars who created the damned thing. However, remember examiners are human (yes, really!), which means that, despite their best efforts, the odd poorly worded question will pop up. But, most exams are designed to be fair, and to give you a chance to show what you know. Examiners are teachers, who by and large, like to see people succeed, not viscous sadists out to torment you.
So, how do you show your love for examiners? Give them a chance to help you out. Follow the instructions on the paper, and answer the right number of questions. Answer the question - there's nothing more frustrating than marking a paper, where it's clear that the student knows about the subject, but you can't award marks because they haven't actually answered the question! Write reasonably legibly, so that a normal human being can read what you've written without an advanced degree in hieroglyphics. And if you're running out of time, write down keywords, phrases or diagrams to show what you know. Give your poor examiners a chance to pass you.
It's Valentine's Day - go on, hug an examiner!
OK, maybe not literally, but at least metaphorically. When you've struggled to learn your subject, you've revised till you're cross-eyed, and you're sat in front of that awful piece of paper and told to 'Turn over your papers', it's kind of difficult to feel much love, or even charity to the rotten beggars who created the damned thing. However, remember examiners are human (yes, really!), which means that, despite their best efforts, the odd poorly worded question will pop up. But, most exams are designed to be fair, and to give you a chance to show what you know. Examiners are teachers, who by and large, like to see people succeed, not viscous sadists out to torment you.
So, how do you show your love for examiners? Give them a chance to help you out. Follow the instructions on the paper, and answer the right number of questions. Answer the question - there's nothing more frustrating than marking a paper, where it's clear that the student knows about the subject, but you can't award marks because they haven't actually answered the question! Write reasonably legibly, so that a normal human being can read what you've written without an advanced degree in hieroglyphics. And if you're running out of time, write down keywords, phrases or diagrams to show what you know. Give your poor examiners a chance to pass you.
It's Valentine's Day - go on, hug an examiner!
12 Feb 2008
Exam coaching – what’s that then?
Have you ever taken an exam and let yourself down? You had worked hard for the exam – maybe not well, maybe not properly, but you had put the work in. And you failed, or maybe got a grade you knew you didn’t deserve. It seems so unfair, doesn’t it – assessing a whole year (or term or whatever) of work on one or two days performance. Well yeah, in some ways it is. But, and here’s the big but, it’s the system for many people. And it’s probably going to continue to be the system for a long time. So you need to learn how to work with the system, and win!
That’s where the idea of exam coaching came from – I have taught young doctors at undergraduate and post-graduate level for many years. But before that I was on the receiving end for sooooo long – batchelor’s degree, medical degree, post-graduate diplomas. I worked out at one stage that I must have sat at least one hundred ‘official’ exams in my career – MCQ, essays, practical, oral - practically every form of intellectual torture known to man! So, maybe, just maybe, I know a bit about what it takes to pass.
A couple of years ago, I took a change in career, and trained as a hypnotherapist. Loved the training, and loved the job. And guess what? I started seeing people as a hypnotherapist for exam nerves, improving performance etc. And so, I decided to combine the two – my years of experience and knowledge of educational practice and psychology; and the sheer usefulness of hypnosis, NLP and similar techniques.
So what is exam coaching, then? Well it’s a process where I partner up with people preparing for exams, to guide and assist them to maximise their chances of passing. In other words, help them to do themselves justice on the day. Seems like a worthwhile occupation to me, don’t you agree?
That’s where the idea of exam coaching came from – I have taught young doctors at undergraduate and post-graduate level for many years. But before that I was on the receiving end for sooooo long – batchelor’s degree, medical degree, post-graduate diplomas. I worked out at one stage that I must have sat at least one hundred ‘official’ exams in my career – MCQ, essays, practical, oral - practically every form of intellectual torture known to man! So, maybe, just maybe, I know a bit about what it takes to pass.
A couple of years ago, I took a change in career, and trained as a hypnotherapist. Loved the training, and loved the job. And guess what? I started seeing people as a hypnotherapist for exam nerves, improving performance etc. And so, I decided to combine the two – my years of experience and knowledge of educational practice and psychology; and the sheer usefulness of hypnosis, NLP and similar techniques.
So what is exam coaching, then? Well it’s a process where I partner up with people preparing for exams, to guide and assist them to maximise their chances of passing. In other words, help them to do themselves justice on the day. Seems like a worthwhile occupation to me, don’t you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
