Did Scoresby really get tested on his knowledge or just what he could remember to write down at that moment in time?
Thank goodness he could remember right? Isn't that also our struggle? When we take a test we study and try to remember that information to be able to physically write it down. When we were reading "Luck", I had a thought. It sparked in my memory when Mrs. Watson was talking about tests and what they really show. Now I know that tests are just a part of being in school and they are a necessity. But what if we were tested on the process and not the product? What if we were tested not on how much information we could remember to write down but how we applied this knowledge and used it throughout the semester?What if we were tested on how well we applied the short stories or how well we can see important things to be brought out in the story (our presentations help with this)? The process is just as important as the final product. Does anyone agree?
As all these questions were popping up in my mind, I remembered something that my chorus teacher had always told us when we were getting ready to gear up for a singing festival or a competition. The judges at these competitions are really critical of your choir. They look for small details that a normal audience would not catch. They see all the little imperfections in our final product (our performance), and they count off many points. But what they do not see is all the successes and right notes that we have hit on our way to getting there. My teacher would always say "wouldn't it be great if the judges could see how far we have come and the right things we did in our process." What he meant was that he wished the judges could give us some credit in the process and for all of the times we did get the imperfections right. But unfortunately, all the judges got and wanted to see was the final, "up to bat" product.That is just how we are tested today. The only way we could prove our knowledge as a choir was to sing it right at that particular moment in time. The only way that tests allow us to prove our knowledge is if we can write the information down at that "right now" moment in time.
What if Scoresby was tested on his process instead of the product (the test)? He might not have done so well. Dont you think? He was tested in a way that everyone is tested, but he just happened to be lucky enough to ace it.What if we could be tested on the process and not the product?
I had this thought and wanted to share it. I know that tests are a concrete way to prove knowledge, it seems, but I wanted to see what you guys thought about process over product.
I agree that the process is more important than the final product. Measuring the progress made in a certain area would seem more reasonable to determine if the person was successful. I do believe tests are important, but I hate that they don't leave room for possible error. No one is perfect. Scoresby probably would have flunked if he was graded on the process rather than the military test he crammed for. Immediately I thought about Christina Aguilera singing the national anthem and mixing up the words. She had probably practiced the song many times and did well, but confused the words when she had to sing in front of millions of people. It's terrible that people will think of how she flunked the anthem and not how great she can sing.
ReplyDeleteIn this case test are really bad when it comes to english yes. Let me restate that test are not really fitted for english. English is based on a persons' own opinion and shouldn't be judged. If there views are too narrow then argue a point to help branden there view of scope.
ReplyDeleteAs for math and science they are a little more straight forward, so i can't really say the same thing. But I think test are there to help scholars strive to go higher which is good because it gives them a limit, and knowing mankind they tend to want to exceed the limits. So Test are good overall.