Interesting article about current testing methods

[Awesome Sauceome]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Its especially interesting because I for sure noticed this when I graduated and started working a research job. I was still in the mindset of multiple choice and I had to learn how to make strong decisions on the direction of projects with results, instead of just finding the "best answer" or the "least worst answer"

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/the-real-world-is-not-an-exam/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[dustimus]

Great article. After studying 2 months straight for the MCAT I'd love to be tested any other way


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Good article. One of our faculty physicians sent this out to our class earlier. Thanks for sharing.

 

[medickdb]

Great article.

Another problem with the current testing model is that it subconsciously ingrains in people a very one tracked way of approaching a problem, especially when you have to memorize a lot of information and dump it all out without necessarily understanding it fully conceptually. It's easy to lose sight of the big picture when focused on key words and the best fit of only four possible answers. Oftentimes, it causes people to understand something from a limited perspective while totally ignoring the process to get to that point.

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

Great article.

Another problem with the current testing model is that it subconsciously ingrains in people a very one tracked way of approaching a problem, especially when you have to memorize a lot of information and dump it all out without necessarily understanding it fully conceptually. It's easy to lose sight of the big picture when focused on key words and the best fit of only four possible answers. Oftentimes, it causes people to understand something from a limited perspective while totally ignoring the process to get to that point.

+1
I have learned in the work force that the two most valuable things are simply:
a willingness to work (be it learning new things, working hard etc)
the ability to think outside of the box

I think a lot of people can have +1 pretty easily, you either work hard and want to learn or you dont. But the second one cannot be learned with current testing methods. It is incredibly easy to get tunnel vision.

Do I have an answer for how we could be tested better? Absolutely not

If you get people doing oral tests then you can get really subjective grading I have found (even to the point that it is like: does the teacher like you or not).

I think the best way I was tested in undergrad was through written answers. Most students loathed them but in both my biochem and micro class we had these gigantic written answers. It forced us to really know our stuff and think outside of the box, not just memorize bullets on a powerpoint.

Or for anatomy we had to circle the correct answers in multiple choice but in a sentence answer why the other possibilities were wrong.

 

[Goro]

So true. Standardized tests are actually the worst way to assess someone's knowledge. So why do we use them so? Because we're lazy and don't want to grade 150 essay exams, which are among the best assessors of knowledge.

Me? I'd prefer oral exams. It's hard to fake your way out of answering "what are some of the causes of a stroke?" Getting all of my faculty peers in one spot for 2 days for 150 students would be the hard part.

Its especially interesting because I for sure noticed this when I graduated and started working a research job. I was still in the mindset of multiple choice and I had to learn how to make strong decisions on the direction of projects with results, instead of just finding the "best answer" or the "least worst answer"

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/the-real-world-is-not-an-exam/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[medickdb]

+1
I have learned in the work force that the two most valuable things are simply:
a willingness to work (be it learning new things, working hard etc)
the ability to think outside of the box

I think a lot of people can have +1 pretty easily, you either work hard and want to learn or you dont. But the second one cannot be learned with current testing methods. It is incredibly easy to get tunnel vision.

Do I have an answer for how we could be tested better? Absolutely not

If you get people doing oral tests then you can get really subjective grading I have found (even to the point that it is like: does the teacher like you or not).

I think the best way I was tested in undergrad was through written answers. Most students loathed them but in both my biochem and micro class we had these gigantic written answers. It forced us to really know our stuff and think outside of the box, not just memorize bullets on a powerpoint.

Or for anatomy we had to circle the correct answers in multiple choice but in a sentence answer why the other possibilities were wrong.

My A&P professor would have the first half of the test as multiple choice, then the second half as free response. Everyone hated her because she was very subjective in what she accepted as correct which was silly because A&P is pretty straightforward. In the end, most of us figured out that she didn't even read what we wrote rather she would just look for our use of keywords in our responses. She was also one of those "I'm right all the time and you'll never know as much as I do" kind of people.

I think with the availability of technology nowadays, more is possible when it comes to testing. However, most instructors still choose to keep it multiple choice.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Great article.

Another problem with the current testing model is that it subconsciously ingrains in people a very one tracked way of approaching a problem, especially when you have to memorize a lot of information and dump it all out without necessarily understanding it fully conceptually. It's easy to lose sight of the big picture when focused on key words and the best fit of only four possible answers. Oftentimes, it causes people to understand something from a limited perspective while totally ignoring the process to get to that point.

Or why doctors are really really really bad at research.
But seriously, I've had classes where you needed to get into the teachers head to understand the mc and for the essay parts just had to understand the theory and big points.

 

[medickdb]

Or why doctors are really really really bad at research.
But seriously, I've had classes where you needed to get into the teachers head to understand the mc and for the essay parts just had to understand the theory and big points.

A lot of people, many pre-meds included, are impatient to the process of science. I mean, look at when you had any of your labs. I bet most people were out of there within 30 minutes because the results of the experiment were generally known already even before the lab began. In my mind, these people miss the point. I'm not saying I didn't at first. I thought all labs were a big waste of time in the beginning. Looking back, I think most of them were quite useful. I learned it wasn't so much about the results you were trying to get, but the process of trying to get there. Rushing through labs and taking exams which require limited lines of thinking lead to the practice of bad science, and therefore bad medicine. It teaches a lot of people that rushing through the process is ok.

It's like making a chocolate cake. Most people know what a chocolate cake looks and tastes like before making it. If you were to ask most people to make a cake themselves, they would take recipe and rush through it without really reading or caring to make a good cake. They just want to make a cake and will make it look pretty afterwards (i.e. fluff up their results to agree with what they know they should be) in order to get an A.

Edit: On that same line of thinking, I reason that's why most people make bad cooks. They're simply impatient.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

In the end it gets back to the whole mentality of undergrad being a hoop to
medical school and not a period of personal growth and enrichment.
Albeit I disliked a lot of labs mostly because they were usually in areas of science that I wasn't a fan of or because I thought they were just generally unpleasant.

But anywho, I think as a whole labs give a bad idea of the dynamics of science. Instead of a free and amazing space they see it as a very set and linear process. Which really blows.

 

[coolingglasses]

So true. Standardized tests are actually the worst way to assess someone's knowledge. So why do we use them so? Because we're lazy and don't want to grade 150 essay exams, which are among the best assessors of knowledge.

Me? I'd prefer oral exams. It's hard to fake your way out of answering "what are some of the causes of a stroke?" Getting all of my faculty peers in one spot for 2 days for 150 students would be the hard part.

I had an undergrad professor who would do exactly this.

I hated it, but I have to admit it was reasonably effective at locking in what was being taught.

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

The advanced electricity and magnetism students at my school (like 8 in that class) had exams entirely orally with the professor. Thank God he didnt do that for normal physics haha. Two people actually failed it and had to remediate their grade somehow, he was legit about it... You could tell when it was going good, the student would be in there for like 20 minutes. But one of the kids who didnt give a crap and never studied too like 70 minutes, it was nuts, we were all waiting for him. He was literally soaked with sweat when he got back to our study room.

 

[AkGrown84]

My organic chem lab professor had us do oral finals. I loved it-it applied our knowledge in ways in which he tried teaching us all semester. If we didn't know something right away, he could give alternatives or hints to guide us to the right answer (or answers). It is very apparent whether students have learned what they were supposed to with oral exams....unfortunately, it's also pretty inefficient as well.