Unknown examination dates

Since Con's last post sums up both his affirmative points and rebuttals of my side, I will be systematically going down his list. 1. Pro asserts that I was off topic by maintaining that knowledge of expectations is important to student success. While I did mention that this was pertinent to content knowledge, which isn't as much a part of this discussion, part of the expectations are the time frame in which one is to know the information. As a very simple analogy, not giving students the expectations of a time frame would be like giving a construction company a job, but no time frame. In order to appropriately assess and prepare for a job, one needs to know expectations. Since we live inside time, content expectations in and of itself provide us with no meaningful context apart from a time frame to learn this content. The problem here is that my opponent is still thinking of assessments as a very rote, systematic idea. But when we draw back from the notion of a paper and pencil, multiple choice test, which is what most higher level tests should be (except the occasional quiz to gather a quick read of the class). On page 35 of my cited source [1], the document says the following: Engagement of students and effective classroom practices. Traditional forms of student assessment and the constraints imposed by limits on time and other resources may place an inordinate influence on the superficial acquisition of skills and facts or any one area in relationship to others. In this way, education systems can gravitate toward readily measured outcomes, instead of more complex but also more desirable outcomes, such as students being able to investigate, create models, or otherwise demonstrate deeper content knowledge (McCarthy, 1994). Notice the higher order thinking mentioned here, that is not the result of simple, easily measured outcomes. Rather, good assessments are "more complex," as they produce higher levels of thinking along Bloom's Taxonomy [2]. But doing the higher order thinking like investigating, creating models, comparing and contrasting, etc, aren't typically things done in a one hour session of class, on the fly. They're done by gathering information, reflecting on the information with peers, being scaffolded by the teacher, and then producing a finished product. Good assessments are the product of a lot of time and goal orientation, not something which is thrown upon someone apart from both content and time specifications. 2. For his second point, pro seems to skirt around the real issue. He agrees with me that exams should measure true knowledge, not just rote memory. And I agree with him, that test's don't measure that. But notice here how the standard is the assessment (they should measure high level thinking). If tests don't align with the standard you are aiming for (high level thinking), you change the tests to accurately reflect the standard, you don't bring your goal/standard down to meet the way you test. Are some teachers still going to give bad tests that don't reflect higher level thinking? Sure. But we aim to go over the bar, not move the bar, despite the fact that we won't always make it. Failure is inherent in nearly any system, and it should not be a reason to lower the standards you're shooting for. On a side note, my opponent rightly mentions that memorization is important to some businesses. So is art. But higher level thinking is predicated upon foundations such as memorization. If you only memorize, you won't have higher level thinking. But if you can think at higher levels, you must have already mastered the memorization (basic definitions of terminology) of that category to deal with it at those levels. 3. My opponent seems to miss the point that we're talking about different levels of understanding here. Being presented with information is great for memorization. So whether a student crams for a test the next day and gains the effects of mass presentation, or whether one gains memorization ability from spaced presentation makes no difference on the grade. Taking away known dates on exams won't automatically cause teachers or students to use the best practices available. And even if it did, students would take the same lame tests that assess rote memorization. But when you have appropriate assessments, rote memorization (which is basically what you get from presentations) goes out the window. You can't just cram for the exam. You have to have a very familiar knowledge of the terms, which only comes from repeated, spaced presentations. Changing the dates of exams won't force institutional changes in procedure. Changing the assessments to higher level thinking will. 4. Even pro athletes feel nervous sometimes, before a big game. But for anyone who has experienced a similar thing in sports or academia, there is a difference between "Oh $^! #" nervousness, and "I'm nervous, but I got this. I'm ready. " In cognitive psychology, the familiarity effect (or repetition principle, mere exposure principle, etc) is extremely well known [3]. The more exposures one has to a particular situation and process, or anything else, the more comfort or liking is afforded to the individual. So while it may not cure all nerves, the practice of an even certainly reduces anxiety. This relates particularly well to the notion of spaced presentations. With this concept, one is much more familiar with the information, and has more exposure. But does it also relate to known time? I think it does. If we gain comfort by exposure, familiarity, and preparedness, running exam day through our minds throughout the quarter/month/week can help one to have a set goal that has stability. Con tries to counter by claiming that if students don't know the date, they have nothing to worry about. However, regardless of ignorance as to the exact date, students understand the inevitability of the exam. Rather than knocking out worry, it fosters it by making students ever wary of what is to come. I imagine it a bit like early sailors who thought they were going to fall off the edge of the earth. Even though some didn't know about hurricanes, rogue waves, or giant squid, as I do, going into the unknown is often scarier than knowing what you're up against. Take this last sentence or two as anecdotal, but I think the evidence I've cited supports it strongly. Conclusion: I'm all for making exams more stringent, and free of the problem Con is trying to address: cramming and rote memorization. However, his solution is simply to make cramming harder to do. However, it doesn't make cramming obsolete, as if one were fortunate enough to cram the night before the exam, they'd still succeed. Furthermore, those who are good at memorizing would not be tested at a higher level, and would still be assessed at a low standard of learning. It is only by making the assesment live up to its standard of assessing higher level thinking that cramming truly becomes obsolete, students are actually tested on how well they can manipulate the material, and familiarity and comfort are afforded to all due to the teaching style necessary to successfully complete such assessments. I believe this type of learning is best used in a situation where test date are known, as this provides students and teachers with goals and stability, and will by no means affect such high level assessments in terms of outcomes due to massed presentation. Thank you pro, once again, for an exciting debate. [1] . http://facstaff.wcer.wisc.edu... [2] . http://www.nwlink.com... [3] . http://blog.lib.umn.edu...