Questioning the quality of online classes without tests.

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by SurfDoctor, Mar 15, 2012.

Loading...
  1. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    I'm going to express my personal opinion here. I have been through many online classes at 6 different online universities taking business and education programs, and I have come to the opinion that most online classes need to incorporate testing in order to offer a complete learning experience. I have found I can usually pull an "A" in most online classes without reading the book, or studying any of the material, if there is no test. I'm good a skimming, pulling a few facts that I need and then extrapolating a paper that gets a good grade. I can easily do this without ever actually reading the book. You have to be a good writer (maybe a good BS'er) to pull it off, but there are many good writers in this world.

    If one can get a good grade in a class without reading the text, there is something wrong.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2012
  2. dumpyogre

    dumpyogre New Member

    Why, so the information can later be forgotten? Whether it's writing a paper the night before a due date or cramming for a test, the majority of that information is forgotten years down the road.

    I fortunately, like you, can also write 10-15 page papers on material I've never read thoroughly. It's something that comes with practice and writing tons and tons of college papers. It's also a technique that isn't unique to online learning. Not everyone has the motivation to finish a huge research paper. It can often weed out those who aren't serious about the college experience.

    There are certain degrees which are near impossible to just slack off and ride the good times (ie...nursing, engineering, hard sciences). For every other degree, it's about finishing a goal and proving to yourself and a potential employer that you can meet deadlines and follow instruction.
     
  3. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I might be comparing apples and pumpkins by chiming in with my undergrad experience, but I happen to find test taking so extremely easy that I can usually guess and BS my way to a much, much higher grade than I deserve. It's not just CLEP I am referring to. For the in-person Chemistry and Calculus courses I took, I found a way to pass each without reading the book, studying for exams nor even being present for every class. (This was during a very difficult time in my life when I really couldn't focus on school.) Anyway, if these courses required a few detailed assignments to be handed in for grading, I likely would have failed miserably.

    Tests are easy if you pick up certain strategies that are nearly universal. It works especially well with multiple-choice exams, but I was able to accomplish much the same with the two courses mentioned above. Oftentimes, the test itself provides much information that can be used to respond adequately even without needing further information. Also, many teachers give partial credit for incorrect answers, so long as you fill a page up with words and/or numbers and make it look like you really tried. Enough words and/or numbers, and at least a few of them are bound to look like you were moving in the right direction at some point, even if you didn't have a clue.
     
  4. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    At one online RA I attended, there was a final exam for English (unproctored). Every other class had no final exam. I agree with Surf, that is a concern. I also agree that being a good writer at schools with this approach pretty much puts an 'A' in the bag. At the NA I attended, there were tons of exams (proctored) and papers, and a final at the end of each semester, too (proctored).

    I'm really interested in finding out how many schools across the accreditation spectrum have one or the other approaches to measuring student competency. It might be some interesting research.

    That probably has more to do with you being pretty intelligent, as I don't think the average person would be able to do that, regardless of the degree level.
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Tests, IMO, can be overrated. Some fields are better suited for exams, and others are not.

    Especially at the graduate level, familiarity with the literature in the field is more important anyway, as it guides research.

    And, as a side note, this OP reminded me of a quote from a history professor I once knew who taught in an MA program. In a moment of candor, he simply stated, "Grad school is about learning how to speak intelligently about books you have never read."
     
  6. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Off-topic, but I don't believe in "intelligence" as a valid construct. Some psychologists theorize that "intelligence" is less about innate cognitive ability than it is a factor of personality. This aligns very strongly with my own belief, that unlike the aforementioned theory which has not been subjected to experimentation and factor analysis, that curiosity, motivation, dedication and confidence are all significantly more important than any neurological structure or system. Those are four personality characteristics that I definitely do not lack. In the case of tests, confidence and curiosity are key to seeing information clearly while dedication and motivation are key to finding the answers within the questions themselves.

    Basically, I'm a nerd and I have so much fun when doing tests that I have a much easier time with them than others. No nerves, no pressure, just the will to dig deeper and perform the best that I can. I really, really, really, really believe that everyone is capable of doing the exact same thing.
     
  7. dl_mba

    dl_mba Member

    Very well said. I have experienced this. A few years ago, i completed MSIT from Aspen University. I never purchased text book for many courses. I just had to answer questions at the end of each chapters and thats it. Very poor quality. I do not mention that degree on my resume or to anybody. No exams, no learning required in many of these .COM schools.. all you have to do is pay the Tuition and thats it.. U get a Degree.
     
  8. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    LOL! That is awesome.
     
  9. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    Of course, there are different types of intelligence, each of them often times being better suited to specific situations. That's one of the reason's standardized tests for intelligence are often criticized for not being able to account for those variations.

    Perhaps, but you have a lot of students who don't care enough to become curious about what they're supposed to be learning, so out of disinterest they do just enough to skate by, with others just failing altogether. Many people have little or no motivation and therefore won't dedicate themselves to things long enough to see them through. I used to be that person, but as is often the case for most of us, I became faced with a moment of "adapt or die". Lots of people really do go with the "die" option pretty much by default just to avoid the burden of responsibility necessary to make the effort.

    I look at capability as something possible, but not necessarily probable. Some people are really bad test takers for a variety of reasons; problems with information recall, or problems with recall brought on by nervousness and pressure weighing on them with the knowledge of a time limit, etc. yet it's been shown that it's not uncommon for people who fall into that category to be better at showing their understanding of the material in other ways, like classroom discussion or through writing a paper on the subject. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for schools to consider having a flexible curriculum that gives students the ability to demonstrate competency based on how they're best able to do it. I know some schools do have an assessment system in place to customize some parts. I realize that schools are attempting to teach students how to learn in more than just the way they're comfortable, but I worry about the possibility that for many students it's a square-peg-round-hole situation and they're falling behind because it's not being recognized by educators.

    Speaking for myself in terms of academic work, I don't learn best by being told something, especially the more complex that something happens to be. I learn best by engaging in it. I have a good memory and I do have a decent ability of adapting to subjects/questions that have similarities to prior learning, but if I don't read the material first before testing and it's something I haven't learned before, I don't do as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2012
  10. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    In other words, you agree with me 100% I love it when that happens on the internet! :hug:
     
  11. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    I agree that many things are forgotten, but that does not provide sufficient support for abandoning testing. Even if the material is subsequently forgotten, a test ensures that a student knew it at the time of the class. Retaining the information is the responsibility of the student, ensuring that the students learn the information is the responsibility of the school. When someone like me (and many others) can skate through a class without studying the material, there is little evidence that the students are learning anything.

    I say this because many of the classes I am taking at Liberty U are requiring a test or at least a written reading summary. Those measures offer a little more evidence that the student has at least read the book. It's refreshing to see a little accountability.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2012
  12. dboven

    dboven New Member

    From my own experience (University of London International Programme), testing does not guarantee knowledge any better than other methods. For London, I had to sit two-hour exams for each of five modules. I spent a couple weeks cramming before the exam days and passed all five on the first go. I suppose it just comes down to whether one is a good test-taker or not, but exams do not guarantee a rigorous course of study any more than papers.

    Peace,
    db
     
  13. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    IMO, examinations combined with paper writing requirements are likely to be more effective than paper writing alone in most cases. You are right that testing does not guarantee a rigorous course of study, but at lease it improves the chances that the student will read the material. This is why instructional design is so important, you can't just assign tests or require papers to ensure rigor; a well designed class will often require a variety of assessments offered in an effective combination.
     
  14. ooo

    ooo New Member

    I don't think tests are the answer.

    Practical application of the knowledge learned in a course seems more useful.

    I've taken classes where I passed, sometimes with an A, the exams in class/ in person without reading the book or attending the class.

    I've taken classes where I attended the class, but bought and read none of the books and passed the exams.

    I've had classes with no exams where my grades varied greatly.

    I've attended class and read every page of the book (plus supplemental) and found thoughtful essays and group or capstone projects much more of a challenge.

    I'm sure it depends on the subject. Upper-level economics exams kicked my butt, but I passed-- do I remember anything from those classes now? Nope! But, I remember a great deal of course content from the courses with capstone projects where we applied the knowledge we gained over a longer span (month-long capstones, etc.).
     
  15. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    That's interesting, I remember quite a bit from my exam based economics courses and I took them many years ago. I'm sure I remember only a percentage of what was on the exams, but much of it has stuck with me.
     
  16. ryoder

    ryoder New Member

    I agree about testing SurfDoctor. It is hard to test a person in a research oriented graduate school though. But each course is different.

    When I took the History of Management Theory at NCU during my MBA, I read the entire book cover to cover. It was about 550 pages and was a great read.

    The assignments asked me to write about various topics in the book so it was very difficult to skate by. I ended up reading that book plus about 20 other journal articles and parts of 4 other books to complete my papers. I have an interest in history so this was great for me and I learned a lot.

    Other people might just do the minimum and write a simple 7 page paper full of opinion that is loosely supported by fact.

    I feel that for the money I am investing, I should work hard. A good day's work is its own reward. But thats my protestant work ethic at work.
     
  17. dboven

    dboven New Member

    Has this been backed up by any relevant research? The exact point that I was trying to make is that neither tests nor papers seem likely to improve the chance of students reading the materials. It would be interesting to try and measure this, but I think the results will be far more dependent on the way a particular student learns best than on the assessments an instructor uses.

    Peace,
    db
     
  18. suelaine

    suelaine Member

    The two colleges I teach for do not have any proctored tests. For the courses I design, I do slip in some "open book" MC exams. This is never a major portion of their grade, but I like to assess them in several different ways and I feel that gives a good overall picture of the students' capabilities and overall learning.

    For other courses that I teach, there is so much rehashing and regurgitation of what is written in their texts that yes, I'm sure it is possible to get a good grade without reading the text. But they would have to read a good portion of someone in the class's interpretation of the text and videos they were assigned to read/view in order to respond reasonably and get a good grade.

    As often as possible, assignments are about applying the learning in their career or other real life circumstances.

    If they never learned it, they cannot write about how they would apply it.

    I teach also teach math and programming, and most work involves problem solving, and some written work to explain how they solved the problem, but not conventional papers that one can write by "being a good writer."

    I have often thought about the ways one could cheat at some of the courses I teach. I could think of ways that many of my students don't seem to think of, judging by the work they turn in.

    Going back to the idea of getting by without reading the text, but being a good writer, I feel that even in those cases, the learner has probably learned most if not all of what was expected from the course. We can ask students to read the text, and if they miss some learning because they don't do it, I always look at a good part of it is they are cheating themselves.

    I know as a learner that I have usually read all parts of my assignments, and done all that was directed because I was afraid I might miss something, but I know not all students are the same in this regard. I believe that a large part of education is that you get out of it what you put into it.

    In my undergrad experience, I took a lot of accredited correspondence courses by distance learning from many different schools including Penn State and Brighgham Young University, just to name a couple. Most of these did have proctored exams, but I certainly did not come away feeling I learned more or better from the ones that required exams, than the ones that didn't. Sorry my thoughts are all over in this, but there are my thoughts.
     
  19. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    Right on, that's a good attitude to have. Also, NCU was possibly the hardest of all the online schools I attended; I'll never understand people claiming that they are academically inferior to schools like Walden and Capella. The NCU courses were well designed and very difficult.
     
  20. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    To my knowledge, there has been little research on the ability of students to skip reading textbooks when there is no associated test, so I'm speaking mostly from anecdotal evidence I have personally gathered as a teacher and as a graduate student. However, Felix Kwan, (Journal of Instructional Pedagogies; May2011, Vol. 5, p1-8, 8p) offers evidence that suggests that papers alone do not fully address learning goals. His research deals with frequent small papers as opposed to frequent small quizzes, not exams and research papers, but his findings suggest that papers alone do not fully address desired educational outcomes.

    Please note that I'm not saying that papers are worthless and that exams are the greatest thing ever; far from it. I'm saying that there needs to be a combination of assessment instruments to accurately measure achievement. I agree with you that neither tests nor papers, when utilized in isolation, improve learning or retention. I'm suggesting that a diversified assessment strategy that incorporates testing, paper writing and other assessments, is more effective than writing papers alone.

    When a test addresses specific concepts that are in a specific textbook, it is difficult to BS one's way into a good grade. You either know the information or you don't. In a paper, you can concentrate on what you know, dance around things you don't know and still deliver a quality paper. Therefore, if you are familiar with the subject to some extent and are a skilled writer, you can produce a paper that earns a good grade without studying the textbook. This issue is exacerbated if the instructor has not read the textbook either, and I suspect that this does happen, although I have no proof of this.

    On the other hand, a paper is an effective instrument for measuring the student's grasp of broader concepts, and this is something that is difficult to measure with a test. Therefore, in my opinion, the combination of testing and paper writing offers a more thorough measurement of the student's grasp of the subject matter because this approach covers both broad and narrow perspectives. It also provides a bit of support, although not conclusive, to the notion that the student is forced to study the material to achieve a good grade.
     

Share This Page