Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
So I will ask the question that has always bothered me: Once a
physicist/chemist/engineer/scientist leaves school, when will he/she/it
ever take another test? Because the issue of extra credit and testing
assumes that testing is a better method of evaluating student mastery of
the material. Tests revolve around solving known problems with limited
resources in a fixed time. Most professionals that I am aware of, do
not approach problem-solving with those skills. Indeed, the first step
to successful professional problem-solving (What has been done on this
problem by others?) is called cheating in a test context.
If a person was actually good at test-taking, how does that
translate into useful professional skills? I certainly believe that the
mastery of the material must be demonstrated by the student, but is a
two-hour exam the best way to do it? Put it another way, does doing
well on the Physics AP or Physics SAT II correlate with success in a
scientific or engineering career? Should colleges (particularly the
sciences) move to some other method of evaluation? Because I figure
that I am emphasizing testing because my students will encounter it at
college.
Note that I do not have answers to these questions and I do use
timed tests in my class.
THO