These readings were very interesting. It was nice to get into some details about useful things on the web. I had not heard the term personal learning network before these readings. It seems that they could potentially be very useful depending on the level of participation within your field. I think that the key to seeing the usefulness of this technology will be to just dive in and try different things out. Twitter is an example of how an online tool can span the gamut from totally vapid and pointless to an immensely useful collaboration of professionals. It is all in how you make use of the tool.
In terms of the Media 21 literacy project, I was somewhat unsure what was actually done. Looking over the goals that were set for students in terms of being able to express their ideas online it seemed promising. However, I am not sure how it worked out.
I also found the article on the inherent causes of cheating interesting. I mostly agreed with the author that students will be less likely to cheat when the testing method seems meaningful and doesn't lend itself to cheating (its hard to cheat on an essay and easy to note if someone marked A or B.) However, I take issue with the assertion that multiple choice tests can't deeply test knowledge. It seems to me that they can test knowledge just as deeply depending on how they are structured. I am not familiar with the educational research on this topic so I will hold back my objections somewhat. I will readily concede that the typical multiple choice test is crap but I have personally struggled very hard to make meaningful multiple choice tests in astronomy and I do think my tests "accurately and meaningfully measure(d) student knowledge and ability." They did so at least as well as the highly subjective grading of "cases, exhibitions, portfolios, and problem-based inquiries." I would also immediately concede that multiple choice tests are equally subjective. My point is that the author is attacking a kind of test when he should be attacking the depth of the test. I have no doubt that my multiple choice questions made students think and thus learn more than many other essay questions(or other means of assessment) on the same topic would. Overall though the authors main points of trying to put more effort into testing, whatever the situation, and seeking to convince students that the test is meaningful are very valid and deserve more light in our current discussion.
Agreed. In physics, I think multiple choice tests are the best way to test for undestanding....if one can design a good test. That can be difficult...but grading them is easy.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how you look beyond the easy answers and into more nuanced territory, both in class and on the blog. Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteI think multiple choice tests CAN be used to test understanding in physics... but I think it can also be helpful to see the student's thought process written out (to diagnose where the most common problems are) and to make sure things like units are right (I may be a holy terror on units when I teach physics). Which isn't to say that you can't require them to both fill out bubbles and turn in notes so you can spot check where you want to but still have the efficient grading.
ReplyDelete