What do you all think? I just finished taking a couple exams today and I noticed something: neither of them taught me anything (besides how to take tests and that there is always a correct answer). The common paradigm seems to assume that all learning takes place in the classroom before the exam and that test day is strictly for regurgitation of the material you learned before the exam; no learning should take place. You either know it or you don’t. And if you don’t, tough.
Personally, I think this method is counter-productive. I’ve taken classes where, although you needed to study, the exam questions were worded in such a way as to reinforce further learning of the material. If you don’t know the “answer” immediately, there are enough hints in the question to conjure up those hard-to-retrieve memories which leads to further rehearsal and ultimately better learning. Oddly enough, these exams were often the “easiest,” but I feel like I learned the most from them. It seems like “typical” exams reinforce argumentation and competition – a definite reflection of American culture (it probably extends beyond this). Is this beneficial? If our current testing method does indeed prepare us for a cultural environment characterized by argumentation and competition then perhaps the current method is the best, from a preparatory standpoint.
But I argue that a more cooperative format is more beneficial in the long run. I had a good conversation the other day about cultural differences in debate. One of my professors was talking about his friends in Papua New Guinea favor a more cooperative style of discourse. The simplicity of his example was perfect. Among his friends, first of all, direct confrontation or the display of an individual opinion is uncommon. Indirection seems to be more common. For instance, if there is a situation of A vs. B, each letter representing a difference in opinion, and B wants A to come over to the B side, B will exercise indirection and slowly try to convince A to come over to B. The whole process is slow, cooperative, and consensual. In contrast, here in the United States, we tend to have our opinions and stick to them. Recently we’ve seen such a display on television with the presidential candidates. Little to no effort is made to come to a consensus. It is always “I am right, you are wrong.” I question what the impact is of such binary, competitive discourse on American culture. Would a more cooperative, consensual discourse be better? I’m not trying to say that fixing our testing methods will magically transform the nature of political discourse, or any other discourse for that matter. But I think it’s worth considering and elucidating the relationships between these things…. what do you all think? Any thoughts about testing methods and how this influences/reflects American culture? Any ideas for change?
