I have been reading this really good book by William Horton in one of my instructional design classes called “E-Learning by Design”. The book has been so informative, and William has really challenged me to think critically on a very specific topic; a topic that for many, causes stress, anxiety, and downright panic: tests. While reading William’s chapter on tests in his book, William challenged us to ponder a rhetorical question: do we even need a test, in the traditional sense, in our e-learning module? Let’s dive in a little deeper and look at some pros and cons of tests in e-learning.
Pros of tests in e-learning.
The more I have been developing my own course at the university I am employed with while reading Horton’s book, the more I have been asking myself “do I even need a test?” And lo and behold, William challenges us to rhetorically ponder if we even need a test at all in the first page of his chapter on tests. Weeks ago, I submitted a placeholder quiz in my storyboard for my course I am developing, and the entire reason that quiz is still a placeholder is because the more I develop my course, the more I realize I don’t need a traditional test at all.
Horton (2012) states that learning content can be categorized into three distinct groupings: Absorb Activities (think: reading or watching a video); Do Activities (actually doing something related to the topic); and Connect Activities (real-world application of content). And here’s the thing, my Do Activities cover the all necessary assessment bases already. So why should I develop that placeholder quiz any further?
In the world of education, there are essentially two types of assessments: Formative assessment and Summative assessment. We utilize formative assessment so learners can be guided by the instructor and receive quick feedback on their progress to help the student learn. Formative assessment is where learning happens. Summative assessment is when it is time to measure effectiveness. The learning phase of the expected outcomes should be complete when the summative assessment is given. Both assessment types in the course I am developing are are classified as “Do Activities” based on William Horton's learning content groupings. If the activities fill in the gaps of a test, then why create unnecessary stress, anxiety and panic over a test that isn’t needed at all?
Reference:
Horton, W. (2012). E-Learning by Design: Vol. 2nd ed. Pfeiffer.
According to Horton (2012), a major pro of a test is to measure student content objectives. As someone who works in curricular assessment, I can certainly echo this statement. Though I don’t care for the use of “tests” in the traditional sense when evaluating performance, I much prefer projects, presentations, papers, something deeper that can dive into the topic where critical thought and comprehension can be evaluated and measured via a rubric. But through the use of tests, we can assess (measure) how effective a program/course is based on tests, and students can demonstrate comprehension of the material proving course objectives have been met.
Cons of tests in e-learning.
Cons of tests in e-learning.
Traditional testing mediums often remove the need – or limit the need – for critical thought. “Good” test takers can fake their way to an A, and in most e-learning I have done as a student, everything is open-book because it can be extremely difficult to enforce honest test-taking practices remotely, even when proctored with locked down browsers. Additionally, if all the content is open-book and the student can use their resources or Google, why ask students to take traditional tests to begin with? Horton (2012) does advise that when using traditional test-taking mediums, it’s best to word/phrase questions with answers that require content comprehension to help gauge understanding. Though to that I still ask, so long as Google exists, how much comprehension can we genuinely measure in a traditional test in e-learning?
Is a test needed?
Horton (2012) states that learning content can be categorized into three distinct groupings: Absorb Activities (think: reading or watching a video); Do Activities (actually doing something related to the topic); and Connect Activities (real-world application of content). And here’s the thing, my Do Activities cover the all necessary assessment bases already. So why should I develop that placeholder quiz any further?
In the world of education, there are essentially two types of assessments: Formative assessment and Summative assessment. We utilize formative assessment so learners can be guided by the instructor and receive quick feedback on their progress to help the student learn. Formative assessment is where learning happens. Summative assessment is when it is time to measure effectiveness. The learning phase of the expected outcomes should be complete when the summative assessment is given. Both assessment types in the course I am developing are are classified as “Do Activities” based on William Horton's learning content groupings. If the activities fill in the gaps of a test, then why create unnecessary stress, anxiety and panic over a test that isn’t needed at all?
Take some time to ponder, what kind of value do your tests afford? Horton (2012) advises us to ask questions about why we are having a test before we create one. What do you hope to accomplish with your test? What do you want to measure? Is a test the best way to measure? So, I too am raising the question; do you need a test?
I would like to close out this blog entry with this wonderful TedTalk by Linda Darling-Hammond. Linda takes us through the cons of unnecessary test-taking, and the information presented by Linda is applicable to both k-12 education, as well as higher ed. I cannot recommend this video enough!
I would like to close out this blog entry with this wonderful TedTalk by Linda Darling-Hammond. Linda takes us through the cons of unnecessary test-taking, and the information presented by Linda is applicable to both k-12 education, as well as higher ed. I cannot recommend this video enough!
Reference:
Horton, W. (2012). E-Learning by Design: Vol. 2nd ed. Pfeiffer.