Read on Twitter
Recently – as both an educator and a parent – I’ve been thinking about assessing things by formal, timed examinations (closed book/open book). A thread follows->
The main value that I can see – and this is an important value – is that preparing for an unseen assessment means sitting down with the stuff you’ve studied, synthesizing ideas, consolidating knowledge, and making connections across one or two+ years of learning.->
Those are incredibly valuable things and well worth doing (I have vague memories of really quite enjoying that stage, when ideas were coming together, but I realise I might be an outlier here: my school nickname was ‘Swot’; I like to think that this was affectionate).->
However, I have got increasingly disillusioned by the idea that a closed-book, timed examination is what the govt like to call a ‘gold standard’ for assessment.->
One advantage touted abt closed-book exams is that students can’t plagiarise, but since we can’t (very reasonably) expect them to remember quotations/precise references, debts to other people’s ideas goes unacknowledged anyway and is actually sanctioned by the exam format.->
Aside from the value of synthesizing knowledge (see earlier), the only argument I can see for formal, timed exams comes down – perhaps counter-intuitively – to equal opportunities.->
At an earlier stage in my career, I’d pushed for 24/48-hour, take-home exams. It was a chastening moment to be told that this didn’t help people with caring responsibilities: a non-negotiable block of time helped them plan, and leverage, time to study.->
If formal exams are here to stay, surely there needs to be a reassessment of the ‘timed’ element. Last week, UK Twitter responses to #GBBO 
were (quite rightly) outraged about the expectation that anyone might bake a successful Sussex pond pudding in under 3 hours.->
were (quite rightly) outraged about the expectation that anyone might bake a successful Sussex pond pudding in under 3 hours.->
The task set needed more time; if you’re really interested in assessing skill/knowledge, then ensure there’s enough time to do it. The same is true of formal exams: if we’re really going to insist on this format, then don’t overload what’s expected in a limited format.->
As noted above, there are virtues in (1) getting students to prepare for something unseen, because in the process of doing so, they’ll be reviewing and consolidating knowledge; (2) time limits can be helpful, since those set more equal boundaries. BUT ->
Tasks set should be more than achievable in the time allocated. If you’ve set what you think is an hour’s worth of stuff, why not allow 90 mins for candidates to complete the paper?->
I’m pretty sure that most won’t write 50% more, but I’m pretty sure that most of them will feel able to take a deep breath and think a bit more before setting pen to paper. ->
N.B. In this thread, I haven’t even got into the fact that the one-shot, closed-book exam system experienced by GCSE and A-Level students is clearly geared against huge swathes of people (in terms of socio-economic opportunity, learning styles, dyslexia, etc.). ->
But that’s a big set of thoughts for another day. The upshot of this thread: if you want formal exams, why not be a bit relaxed (within reason) about how long you give candidates to answer the questions set?->
Long thread. Sorry.
