Credit by Testing - Is this a good thing?

I'm not questioning (at least not yet) whether an institution should award credit solely based on testing. However, my question to the group is whether completing college credits by testing (e.g. CLEP, DANTES, etc.) is really a very good way to learn. Perhaps this is not common, but I've seen posts on this board that seem to indicate that some students, starting from scratch, will study for a relevant test and then a month later, take and pass the test for college credit. Compare this with a traditional class or a distance learning class that parallels a traditional class. In these classes students study the material over a course of 15 weeks, complete homework, take one or two mid-term exams, discuss the material amongst themselves or with the professor and then take a final, often comprehensive, exam. I have little doubt that I could cram for month and take that same final and pass it; however, how well would I actually learn the subject???

Am I the only one who thinks you need time to work with a subject to make sure you really assimilate it? I can dig awarding credit for appropriate experience. In fact someone who has experience with the topic probably knows the subject best of all! However, awarding credit for passing a test seems to be a sub-standard method of teaching -- at least to me.

I know I'm probably going to get slammed by the Big-3 crowd, but I'm always amazed at how often someone will suggest to a newbie who has most of their learning ahead of them to check out one of these schools because testing is the way to go. Of course the Big-3 offer many alternatives for acquiring credit. However, I contend that the quality of learning should account for something and before we suggest that someone go off to study for a CLEP test we should be offering some better alternatives.

Its just my opinion.

 

JoAnn,

My understanding is that standardized tests measure learning already attained. Additionally, I would venture that most DL folks already have a measure, if not significant, background in some areas and standardized tests are a validated method to award credit for this learning. Additionally, since individual learning curves vary I would also argue that any predetermined timeframe for courses is more to benefit the institution than the student. Obviously it would be very difficult to have every student on an individualized timeframe. The Big 3, and others, offer an attractive method to meet the individualized nature of learning and allow folks to pursue a degree.

 

Your probably right, some people are cramming for these tests and passing them (only to forget the material days later). There are also some that KNOW the material already (and are just refreshing their knowledge on the subject). You have to remember a lot of these students are experienced mid-career adults. They have been around the block a couple of times and learned a few things along the way.

If you know the material I don't feel you should be forced to take a 15 week course on it. If you can study for a week and pass a CLEP, then do it.

Best Regards,
Bill

 

Experience Good -- Cramming Bad

Bill & Fed

I agree that using tests to evaluate a persons experience is a good thing; however, how does an employer or graduate school differentiate between students that passed the tests to confirm their experience versus students that just cram and pass? I'm not saying that there aren't some especially gifted people who can learn in far less time that the average person; however, I don't think there would be a viable "market" for credit-by-testing if only those people were allowed to take the tests. I know that I don't have any documented evidence to back up my contention that cramming is a bad way to learn; but does anyone disagree with that? I wonder what the breakdown is between students who take the test to confirm experience versus students who are cramming to get a quick credit? I'm afraid there would be far more of the latter, but I could be wrong.

 

I think it's relative to the person's situation. I am one of those you speak of. Do I want my 19 year old to do this? No, he's 19, has very little life experience, doesn't have any skills for employment beyond working in a restaurant. Society says he needs an education, and so do I. In my opinion, for him or any 19 year old, education is a process, you start at point A and move through to point Z. You have to work at it, you gain respect for yourself, you gain insight to others just by being on campus. It shows you can start and finish something. It's invaluable for him.

I'm 48. I had to go to work right out of high school. My family couldn't put me through college, no money. So I went to work, all the while INTENDING to go. Well, I worked hard, got promoted, got promoted again. I reached a point in my late twenties where my experience was getting me everything I needed. School became secondary, then tertiary when I had my family. Promotions continued, money continued. My lack of a degree only bothered me, not my employers.

At 39, I decided to change careers, needed an education to do that. Obtained my RN and have worked for 6 years doing that. Now, I want to finish what I meant to start. Do I need to take all those entry level classes? No. I don't believe I do. I'm kind of working it backwards. The experiences have taught me, now I need to validate those experiences in order to obtain the piece of paper that says I can do it, even though my life has proved I can.

With degree in hand, I hope to advance to a master's program and truly learn something important.

That's where I'm at. I think it's great. I can tell you very little about the intense studying I did to get my RN other than it was hell. It was book-learning. I probably couldn't pass those classes again without re-studying hard, very hard. I'm a good nurse. I'm excellent at what I do. Studying something over 15 weeks doesn't make it stick longer the farther out you are from it. Adults learn by doing. What I do and what I learned have little correlation in real life, even though I looked very hard to find it. Maybe that's perculiar to nursing, don't know.

I'm not saying education isn't important, I'm just saying that education comes in all forms and some of us do it backwards. For adults with long histories of work and community, the Big 3 are an excellent way to get to where we want to be without making us sit in class rooms with others not old enough to vote.

Just my 2 cents and I'll take my flogging too.

 

JoAnn,

unless there is a positive knowledge requirement why worry? My BA is twenty years old, I doubt that I could pass every course that I took for that degree. But the stuff I use everyday would be a breeze. If you are concerned, then as an employer I would develop a positive test for the knowledge and use it to screen applicants.

I agree cramming is a bad (no) way to learn. But I believe in most instances the degree is more a means to an end than for knowledge attainment when students are cramming for standardized tests.

Your topic is a good one for discussion though....

 

Agree w/Bill

I think that testing is a way for students to prove that they have the learned knowledge of a subject without having to sit through 12 to 18 weeks of class only to show that they can endure the classroom environment. I think that in my case I would not have made it to where I have without the ability to "Clep out" some classes and shorten the time required to get my degree.

I think that you are concerned with

1. "credibility" and if a degree will actually withstand criticism if much of the credits are obtained through testing. OR

2. your concern is if you test out and then you land a job that requires you to apply knowlege that you should have obtained in college.

to answer both concerns, look at the transfer of credits page on any college website or in any college catalog. Many colleges and universities have a policy in place in regard to testing and the amount of credit that will be accepted via tests. These schools must find some validity in the ACE, CLEP, DANTES, Etc. in order for them to allow them to be part of your degree path. Secondly, any job is going to train you! No matter what level of college you have obtained, when you walk into an organization they will not expect you to run your job as a Social Worker in Idaho, the way some school Down in South Carolina teaches Social Sciences (Idaho & SC are just examples). You will have to know the background of Sociology and the basic knowlege of the subject area...but the training will reinforce what you learn in school or prove that you know by testing.

If you need to expedite your progress to your degree, first find out if your school accepts cleps, etc. and their limitations on when/how many and then do yourself a favor by demonstrating the knowledge that you have already attained.

Mike

AA Burlington College, NJ
BA TESC, NJ
MS SMSU
PhD NCU (Feb 04)

 

JoAnnP38 writes:

> I can dig awarding credit for appropriate experience. In fact
> someone who has experience with the topic probably knows
> the subject best of all!

The way credit is awarded for "appropriate experience" is by portfolio. Our resident portfolio expert, Steve Levicoff, hath written: "Also remember that, if you *are* culturally literate and can challenge a degree largely by portfolio, you won't learn a hell of a lot at the bachelor's level (although you will certainly learn how to work the system). So start making plans to find a graduate program where you can actually *learn* something substantive and have some more fun."

> However, awarding credit for passing a test seems to be a
> sub-standard method of teaching -- at least to me.

But substitute "BA largely by testing out" for "degree largely by portfolio", and Steve's comment is still true.

> how does an employer or graduate school differentiate
> between students that passed the tests to confirm their
> experience versus students that just cram and pass? [...]
> I know that I don't have any documented evidence to back up
> my contention that cramming is a bad way to learn; but does
> anyone disagree with that?

"Bad" in what way? Are you worried that knowledge gained by cramming will be forgotten sooner than knowledge gained by experience? It may; but anything used on the job or in grad school should be retained, so the employer or grad school shouldn't care. Are you worried that some useful knowledge is simply not testable? I think that, in principle, any useful knowledge should be testable. If you want to argue about the limitations of specific types of tests, such as multiple-choice tests, there I might agree with you.

 

Re: Re: Credit by Testing - Is this a good thing?

Actually -- yes. From a very small sample (1 - me) I found it very interesting that when taking math classes today in which my prerequisites for the class were taken over 20 years ago, just how much I actually remember from then. I couldn't have recalled that knowledge on command; however, when prompted I remembered much more than I would have thought possible.

On the other hand, I've had other classes from that time period (most notably Psychology) where I was allowed to study at my own pace and take two exams -- a mid-term and final. I ended up studying for and taking these test in the span of about three weeks and today I seem to remember almost nothing except a bit about Pavlov's (sp?) dog. I know this isn't very scientific and could be well explained by my higher aptitude in math; however, anecdotally I've never heard anyone defend cramming as a high quality learning alternative.

 

But 'self remembering' psych and being required to remember math in a class setting are two different things by your own response. Do you suppose you would remember more of the psych if you were sitting in the class requiring you to come up with the information? Would you have remembered your math if you just 'thought' about math as something from 20 years ago? You won't know til it happens. I studied algebra for 16 weeks in 1998. When I looked at some clep info about math recently, I remembered none of it. It was a subject I hated and suffered through, haven't used since I took it, and have no real memory of it now. So what good was the 16 weeks I spent with it, especially since it's had no application to my life since 1998. None.

I'm sure there are actually tons of study available out there about this topic. For me, I'm glad I have the opportunity to use the system that's here for my benefit. I see nothing wrong with it and I will have no problem defending it. If it wasn't legitimate, colleges nationwide would not allow it.

 

Please explain to me the difference between showing up to class for lecture every day, reading the books at home at night, showing up for tests, and then taking a final at the end of the semester vs

reading the text on your own time and understanding the material well enough to pass the final?

there is no difference.

I do not have the time to sit in class. I have a very good memory and remember well what I read. Why should I not have the ability to get my degree in this way?

I took the Civil War & reconstruction Dantes test yesterday. It was more difficult than I imagined. I read 2 Civil War textbooks cover to cover and have a very good grasp of the Civil War, it's players, the politics, and the reconstruction. I do not think that credit by testing should be looked down upon when compared to traditional college classes.

 

Your question, JoAnn, begs the comparative question (which if you have had traditional college exposure you will recall as quite familiar): how many students merely study just to pass the exam (or whatever busy work is assigned) of the course anyway, and forget what they've "learned" soon after? What is reality and what is merely a misplaced faith in "seat time?"

Ultimately, however one is empowered, educational opportunity is what one makes of it. There is no universal measuring-stick guaranteeing a desired uniform outcome; only fifty years ago or so, even "the best" US colleges and universities were but finishing schools for many (if not most)! A College degree, and even a graduate degree, is foremost an indicator of perserverence.

Which is why a credential is only one part of a resume or CV - it's the total package by which one is judged when facing most of life's gatekeepers - not any singular piece! Consider, for instance, one's SO! Would you marry or refuse to marry someone based only upon their degree or eye color or family background alone? Not bloody likely.

--Orson

PS I cast no aspersions at your opinion, JoAnn - except that your "faith" reminds me of all the stooges of my risable secondary education: ALL was measured by the God of "seat time" - outcomes never mattered to these crazed unionized instruments of the bureaucrat opprression- only seat time. Why? Because that's how they were (and too often still are) funded by the state. The "12 year sentence" (yes - a book title savaging conventional US public education) indeed! After all those evils, you wouldn't really want to bing back another four years of the same? - or would you? Nevertheless, I do hold your opinion in suspicion because it alies with the oppressors - not the liberators; if you valued my liberation more than your faith in the measuring instrument of the oppressors I would not.

 

Re: Experience Good -- Cramming Bad

I wonder how many traditional students do their homework and learn the material to pass a test as opposed to the traditional student that crams for a test just to pass it and forget the material two hours later???

 

Re: Re: Experience Good -- Cramming Bad

I think this is fairly common, especially with required classes that don't necessarily apply to your major. When taking 120+ credits, there are bound to be some classes you have to take that you don't really care about but are required to fill certain squares for graduation. For me, it was "Art Appreciation", filling a lower level humanities square back in 1993 and "Personality Development", a psychology class that filled my upper level social science square. My degree focused on aviation safety and management, which I apply everyday on the job, and those two classes were just square fillers. Incidently, my wife (a humanities major) wishes that I got a lot more out the art appreciation class.

On the subject of testing, I am not a big fan of cramming just to pass a CLEP, but do understand why it is necessary in some cases. My feeling is that tests for credit are really there for two types of people. The first are people who already have such extensive knowledge on a topic that is is a waste of time to take the class. A personal example for me was the Public Speaking test. I had six years of teaching experience from the military when I took the test and knew that I wasn't going to get much out of a physical class. The second is somebody who is trying to fill a specific square in something that you will brain dump after the last day in the physical classroom, "Art Appreciation" in my case.

 

An interesting thread.

As someone "CLEPping out" and enrolled in one of the Big 3, I suppose my views might be biased, but like many in this forum I attended college 15+ years ago and am now focused on finishing what I started.

Last week I took the CLEP Principles of Management exam. I found it absurdly easy, not because of cramming (although I did review some of the formal names/events such as the Hawthorne studies a few days before) but because I have years of practical management experience. (I got a 76 - 3 more credits!)

To an 18-19 year old, they won't know instinctively the differences between types of structures, an organization chart, laws pertaining to union organization, collective bargaining and the fact that senior executives are more conceptual and strategic than line management.

This same college freshman or sophomore will need a year's worth of classes to formally learn what I learned informally (with supplemental short courses, magazine and book reading) over the past 10 years as a manager at various levels in small to large organizations.

This is just a specific example, but it illustrates the point that many make - CLEP, DANTES and ECE exams prove, in a standardized way, what you already know. Also, as the exams change in content from time-to-time the knowledge of the subject must be fairly broad as well - unless you study from the current exam you'll never know all of the questions in advance.

Is CLEP, DANTES and ECE a good way to learn? No. It's a way to demonstrate learning. Learning must occur prior to taking these exams.

My next exams are Drug and Alcohol Abuse and Principles of Marketing. For both, I have some knowledge, but I don't know enough to get the grade I'm looking for.

Active self-application of perhaps 10-20 hours to supplement prior knowledge equivalent to another 20-30 hours is at least equivalent to spending 2 hours a week for a semester in a class where a student is either (i) hung over, (ii) disinterested, or (iii) stressed about some personal problem. I don't know about everyone, but I had personal experience with all 3

As an undergraduate the first time around, I inconsistently applied myself - some courses were ignored until 2-3 days before the final. Others I found more interesting and actively participated. In multiple cases I blame the quality of the professors as well as my own immaturity. A lot also comes down to your learning style - traditionally unless I was very engaged my grades slipped during full-year courses.

At least with the degree-by-examinination approach it's all up to me - if I fail, it's my problem. If I succeed, it's my triumph. The only thing I find I lack with this approach is classroom discussion, but as most of us here have little in common with 18-21 year olds, we accomplish this by conversing with spouses, co-workers and via messages on this board.

Cheers,
Mark

 

Re: Re: Re: Experience Good -- Cramming Bad

I totally agree. The majority of my classes are taken on campus, but since I work full time, I didn't want to take 10 years to get my degree. The first CLEP I took was in Accounting. I had 2 years of Accounting in high school (in the 80's) and do accounting-type work. I studied for about 8 hours and got an A, so I guess this can be attributed to the "extensive knowledge" type. The other tests that I have taken have all been electives and I don't feel the the courses are necessary to do my job (i.e. Intro to Law Enforcement doesn't do much for an accountant), so those would've been "brain dump" classes regardless of the format.

On the subject of brain dump, something interesting just happened in my class less than an hour ago. My instructor asked how many of us had taken a particular class last semester and the vast majority of us had (because of the program). He asked that if we had to take a comprehensive test today, how many thought that they would get an "A." Not a single hand was raised. A "B?" Nothing. How about a "C?" Only about two hands went up. Most of the class estimated that they would get a D or lower. The class ended merely a month ago!! To me, this just proves sitting in class for an entire semester is not necessarily more effective. (It should be noted that this class is an integral part of our program and most of us know that we will need the information during our careers.)

 

And what about all that cramming that goes into those good old GMATs, LSATs, GREs, etc, etc, etc. Cramming for those tests is big business for publishers and test preparers. Our little world of education revolves around testing. If you score high enough in any of the big entry exams, you get to pick where you want to go. Obviously people cram for those tests. Are they truly indicative of their learning? Partly, and partly not. It's the education system itself that has put the emphasis on testing. And of course there's all the professional tests, the bar, the CPA, etc, etc.

 

My experience

This works both ways. There are those people who know the material very well. Why should they be required to go through the time and expense of a traditional school program? But there are always people who abuse the system - they study for the test for several weeks, then pass it and forget everything they studied. They just wanted the credits. This is OK in several situations, for instance - if the course is just a general ed. that is totally unimportant to the student and his major.

Third, there are people like me. I am weeks away from 19 years, but I know some subjects so well that I score off the charts of the local community college's standarized testing. English is one of those subjects. Even though my English education was "only" high school, I scored a perfect on the community college test and scored in 96th percentile of the control group on the CLEP test - in the first month of my senior high school year. I obviously know English very well. Without any college credit in English, I was an editor for the administration dept of the city I live in. I reviewed all their public relations material for grammatical errors, without any formal college! Now, I am an insurance agent, and review all the office's material and still work as a consultant for others on important public relations issues.

Maybe it should be a little more regulated than now, but that is why the tests are scored on a scale. It shows if you do well or not. But if you get a job based on your tests then it comes out that you really do not know what you are doing, I can guarantee that you will be out of there fast. It shows one way or another.

That's my two cents worth! Thanks!

Steven

 

IMHO the Excelsior maxim of "Its what you know and not where you learned it" is applicable here. Valid testing methods that demonstrate that you have the knowledge is acceptable. Credit by exam is adopted by most RA academic institutions and considered a means of earning valid college level credit.

The University of Arizona policy on exam credit is of note: http://catalog.arizona.edu/policies/994/clep.htm and woth a read in this discussion.

Iowa State strongly encourages credit by exam (CBE): http://www.iastate.edu/~catalog/2001-03/geninfo/cbe.htm

And at the University of Minnesota it was found that the typical undergraduate who were awarded credit by exam through AP and IB courses had higher GPAs: http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/reports/intlbamn.html

John

 

My brief $0.02:

1) It was asked if it is fair for a potential grad school or employer to consider passing a CLEP (general term) the same as passing a B&M course. I really don't think it matters. While having passed a course in US History may be required for a BS in my field (computers), the number of grad schools or employers who actually give a darn whether I know the principals that made up the Jeffersonian Era is very quickly approaching zero.

2) As has been pointed out previously, many students in B&M courses forget the knowledge soon after they take the final, especially for Gen-Ed courses. The result is often the same.

3) Just a few numbers. It has been my experience that a traditional B&M course which is good for 3 semester hours of credit results in a total of about 40 hours of classroom time, and about 40 hours of homework/reading time. Usually much of the reading and the lecture time repeat each other, as do the home work and classroom review times, but still we'll call that 80 hours. If a working adult studies for a CLEP over the course of a month, spending two hours a week night reading, and an average of 4 hours per weekend day performing additional work, that's almost 80 hours of study time. If you put in the same amount of time, is it really an inferiour education? Students will generally only learn and remember what they want to regardless of the format.

Personally, the much bigger concern for me isn't people cramming for an exam, but people buying questions. These people who sell what amount to brain dumps on eBay piss me off.

Daniel