Assessing Assessments

You would expect that the biggest lightbulb moment at Bible college would be something profound. Marvelling on the glorious transaction of the cross as the Father's anger was poured out on his Son. Perhaps something about the nature of the trinity, or seeing a biblical truth anew through knowledge of the biblical languages. No, not me. My biggest lightbulb moment came midway through first semester when I realised somehow I had managed to finish the HSC with a score in the 90s, plus fly through an applied science university degree, without ever knowing how to study. I mean, really study.

It is nothing short of God's grace (Though perhaps also a mild indictment on our education system). But I truly have never studied. In one sense, I've never needed to. My goal was either to pass an exam, or know just enough to be able to do my job. But studying God is different. Because it counts. At college I am on about knowing God better, understanding him deeper, and obeying him more fully (?fuller).

But a year down and I am on my way to learning how to study.

On a related note, people said to me at the start of the year, "You can't cram languages". As it turns out: not true. You can. And I did. And somehow it has stuck. Though I should preface that statement by saying I never tried to cram vocab. I was generally on top of learning new words, and have come to the realisation that vocab covers a multitude of sins.

One interesting byproduct of actually knowing what I'm meant to be learning is I have become hyper-critical of examinations. That is, though I was rebuked by Sarah earlier in the year for a distinct lack of graciousness when getting essay feedback, this has been replaced with a hopefully more humble and appropriate assessment of our assessments.

I overheard a lecturer responding to a student question about exams with a statement along the lines of "We know you're here to learn, and you'll do the work regardless of the assessments we set." I remember only too fondly from my early days living out of home what it was like living in fantasy land, where apparently this lecturer still resides. The principle is sound: that we're here to learn. The implication - that we will learn everything regardless - is naively misguided. Like everything in life, college is a series of compromises. To focus on one thing is inevitably at the expense of another. And so assessment is more than just an arbitrary task to fulfill some kind of irrelevant educational expectation.

Conversely, I have very quickly ascribed to another lecturer Gibbo's view - that the teaching staff communicate to students where they should spend their time based on where marks are allocated. This gem from Gibbo came in response to our Greek principal parts test. In trying to reduce the number of assessments, the Board of Studies decided to take away the 10% exam that traditionally existed to test principal parts. The only problem was, they still expected us and really wanted us to learn them. So we still had to do the work, they just didn't add the additional imperative of marks. So, as other things were due at a similar time, the percentage of students who put in the hard work of learning them, was greatly reduced on previous years who had the 10% exam. We still had the exam, but the prize (to those who scored 8/10 or above) was a piece of cake that Gibbo had baked. This long excursus has a point: Assessments aren't arbitrary, they communicate to the students where they should invest their time.

My further reflections on the Moore College examination system are really a byproduct of that definition. If the examination communicates where students are to invest their time, the method and content being examined must be in line with the goals of the particular subject.

Thus our final Hebrew exam was way too short in time. Only about 10-20% of the class finished (thankfully I was in that group, but only just). I felt that at this early stage, speed isn't a particular concern of our language learning. And there is a sense where we really should have to labour over the particulars of the language. At the point where a large proportion of the class is unable to demonstrate their knowledge, albeit knowledge that is slow, seems to be a deficiency in that test. Part of the problem is our year is the first where subjects are broken into semesters (e.g. Hebrew 1A and 1B) rather than year long subjects. And thus with the Hebrew exam they kind of cut the original two hour end of year exam in half in both time (to one hour) and in it's content. Unfortunately the parts cut out were the easier stuff (vocab) where you would usually rush through in a disproportionate amount of time to the mark value.

Or take our Old Testament 1B exam. There was a multiple choice, short answer section (worth 1/3rd of the marks). Yes, that's right. At Moore College. Multiple choice. I can hardly believe I'm typing this. The funny thing was, that was the hardest part of the test. In the essays I can get points for arguing, even if my conclusion is wrong, but there are no free marks in multiple choice. And furthermore, in an overview subject (it was the entire OT canon barring the Pentateuch which was covered in first semester), many of the multiple choice covered minutiae. For exam preparation we were told, whatever you do, don't sweat the details. It's all about big picture, know the century, know the rough political situation. And then we get a question on the Maccabean revolt, which firstly is in the intertestamental period and has limited bearing on an OT overview, and secondly IT'S A DETAIL! A quick look on wikipedia says it was 167-160 BC, which I'm pretty sure covered at least two of the answers. And like all good multiple choice questions, there was often more than one correct answer and we were supposed to answer the most correct. Which is fine, until you get a question like what is Daniel 7-12 most about? And the options are three of the possible historical applications and the fourth option is spiritual warfare. The answer is completely dependent upon your particular view of Daniel, it's composition and intention. What does spiritual warfare mean anyway? If it was composed in exile, then that spiritual warfare may well have been the rise of Cyrus (one of the historical options). But I digress.

There is a sense where fill-in-the-blank questions just aren't an adequate test for what is essentially an art (biblical interpretation). So one of the questions which I got wrong was 'According to 1 +2 Kings, after David which king receives the greatest praise?' I wrote Hezekiah, because as an open book exam I had my bible there, and I thought what better way to learn the summary of a king's reign than read the summary of the king's reign (the regnal form for those playing at home)? I compared 2 Kings 18:5 which says,

He (Hezekiah) trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.

Now with a description like that, it didn't matter what was said about Josiah who was the other option (Solomon gets a better wrap in Chronicles and the New Testament so he was out). And this is what it says about Josiah in 2 Kings 22:2,

And he (Josiah) did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.

Now that's a pretty good description, right?  Follows in line of David, pleased God etc. It's just a pity that Hezekiah was so trusting in God before him, that there was no one like him after him, as Josiah was. Case closed: It's Hezekiah. The only hiccup is a second summary later in Josiah's reign in 2 Kings 23:25 which says,

Before him (Josiah) there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.

Well, now that makes things interesting, because all of a sudden you've got two kings 'like no other'. Obviously they're like no other using different measurements. So now you're asking what basis of the reign is being judged? Is it better to never turn away from God (Josiah) or to amidst sin turn back to him (Hezekiah)? That's still a hard question in my mind which I could argue either way. So yes, Josiah is the most right answer. I even have a soft spot for those who would answer Solomon and even anyone who said Jesus.

It sounds like I care more than I do about the 1.27% of my final result that this question was worth. I really don't care. The benefit for me was knowing what a regnal form was, and how it was a good indicator of a king's reign, knowing who these kings were and where they reigned, even when I wasn't certain of all the details. So it was successful because I learnt overview. Unfortunately this question wasn't especially testing overview. I had to write the essay outline in my head to convince myself the answer was Hezekiah (even though it wasn't). So whilst the process of answering the question adequately applied the intended course outcome, that I still got it wrong simply consolidates for me the failure of this method of examination to truly reflect the course aims. It was a section testing details in an overview subject. Yes, a detail covered in the lectures. Yes, a detail I should have known. (My gut reaction was Josiah until I read the regnal forms). But no, I don't feel these questions on the whole enabled the students to be examined on their overview knowledge of the Old Testament. In one sense it enabled us to be differentiated academically, but in an arbitrary way - dependent upon guessing correctly or who happened to remember the right date during their study which happened to come up in this section.

Alright, end rant.

I must have a big idea here somewhere.

Okay, college is great and I've learnt heaps. I think in some ways I am even moving towards the, 'Will learn for learnings sake' of that naive overheard lecturer. The lecturers are well thought through in their teaching and assessments, and most encouragingly are responsive to feedback. But personally, now that I actually want to learn, it has dramatically shaped my understanding of the assessment process and how it helps facilitate my learning.