Examination

A very cool video, can't stop laughing.

More serious stuffs below though. I always have some opinions about exams, so it's time to summarize it before I leaves school's life.

When was the earliest exam in human history? I couldn't find the exact answer though definitely "The Imperial Examination" (科举) in China since Sui dynasty is in my mind. It has been claimed that it is regarded by most historians as the first standardized tests based on merit. (from wiki).


However, modern examination system originated from the West (perhaps UK?) and all-time favourite MCQs (Multiple choice questionnaires) are invented in 1914 by a US guy name Frederick J.Kelly. But then, the Chinese examination system and the bureaucratic system were quite modern, argued by some scholars.

There are so many disputes about examination system (do we as a student aware of that?). I think it is needed but it's importance shouldn't be overvalued. Look at how we pressure student to get good grades. Look at how we look downs on student who get poor grades. Look at how society build its meritocracy based on purely exam. Is exam nowadays a hype? Exams could only test the logical and linguistic forms of intelligence (partially) and there are already numerous arguments that human has multiple intelligences, by Dr. Howard Gardner; Robert J. Sternberg, and ec-cetera.


How accurate exam is in testing these 2 intelligence? Let's look at few forms of assessment presently.

i) MCQs (Close book)
Pros: Fair, objective, time and cost efficient, wide range of questions.
Cons: Element of luck, mastery of random shooting, reflects only shallow understanding.

ii) Structural responses & Essay (Close book)
Pros: Reflects deep understanding, encourages open responses.
Cons: Memory machine, mastery of question spotting, subjective, time-consuming to mark.

iii) Open book exam
Pros: No need to memorize unnecessary formula and stuffs, open responses.
Cons: Not applicable to many subjects.

There are different pros and cons for each form, but I believe that main problems are not the forms (could you think of better method to test?) but how the forms are carried out. At here few constraints are examined to see whether are they reasonable.

a) memory constraint
One thing I like least in taking engineering's test is to memorize bloody formula list which contains unknowns from A to Z. In the first place, why should we memorize that? Do people memorize that in reality? Formula is developed to be used, not to be memorized. Is testing short-term memory more important than testing understanding? There are already so many things need to be put inside memory and brought into exam hall, formula memorizing is a useless burden and doesn't assess anything really. For other subjects that need to test on memory, perhaps a separate test on memory would serve this purpose better?

b) scope constraint
Relating to part a), the scope of the question is somewhat a troublesome issue. Usually we study much more than what we could be examined in a limited test period. So depending on your spotting technique and luck, you can outperform many that have better understanding than you. If exam is about fairness in accessing student's understanding, why shouldn't it prevent spotting?

My suggestion is to tell the students the exact scope (no + or -) before exam. Telling the exact scope is not disclosing the questions. Firstly, it's fair to all and eradicates spotting. Secondly, it really tests student's understanding. This works best if only some materials taught are important. If all chapters are important, I would rather the period be lengthened and all are tested. What's the rationale behind to use random partial contents to test the whole understanding? You may argue that this could make it difficult to grade students, but I think it depends on how you set the questions. There are various questions can be set from the same scope.

c) time constraint
Is how fast can you reason much more important than how logically can you reason? Certainly we cannot afford set the test period to be unreasonably long, but is current period too short until it impede student's logical reasoning? How often we go into exam hall, worrying for lack of time, just cram in whatever we know? How often we couldn't finish the paper? I wonder the test period now is set to be just enough. Will test accesses student's understanding and reasoning better if the period is lengthened?

d) number constraint
Number here means number of tests. Taking into account randomness of questions, luck, state of the mind and other factors, students' performances in similar tests could varied greatly. It's a bit ridiculous to set this number to be 1, or most weight of the score is based on 1. But practicality is another issue.

By including all the factors and constraints, it could be seen that exam's accuracy in testing these 2 intelligences have great tolerance, though it is the best available system.

What the school don't teach us is the correct attitude in taking exam. Exam is only one method of testing knowledge and understanding, in 2 of many aspects of intelligence. It shouldn't shatter students' confidence if their have knowledge and understanding but not doing so well in exams. Though society places great emphasis on exam, exam is only important only for certain period of life. One may be exam smart but doesn't reason well. The real forces that guide all along the way are knowledge and reasoning power.