A test is designed to both determine how much a student has learned and create an incentive to learn more. However, professors are often reluctant to reveal what specific material a test will include. They would rather have a student “overstudy” than “understudy.” There are several problems with this sort of approach.

First, there is often so much material on a midterm that “overstudying” detracts from the relevant material that will be covered on an exam. Rather than attempting to understand the test material, students just try to memorize it all. Even if a student tries to really comprehend the material, he may end up learning something that isn’t even covered on the exam. The bad grade that he receives won’t be commensurate with the knowledge that he has gained in the class.

“Information overload” also causes students to forget everything as soon as the exam ends. This is especially true for history courses. I don’t know when the War of 1812 was or who fought in the French-Indian War. Rather than holding on to digestible kernels of knowledge, students end up forgetting everything. Indeed, the volume of information on an exam ends up overshadowing the interesting material in a class. When I hear something really intriguing in a class, I like to follow up on it-talk to the professor, find some books on the subject, look it up on the Internet. Unfortunately, I’m often too weighed down by the sheer amount of information covered in a class to have the luxury of really delving into the subjects that interest me. Rather than taking something away from a class or perhaps pursuing a different major, I just struggle to pass the test.

Finally, tests are unrealistic. In very few professions does it matter that someone knows the material between 1:00 and 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 16. Rather, in the real world, what is valued is a continual knowledge or the ability to look up information quickly. When I dial 411, I don’t expect the operator to know the telephone number for Del Taco.

Given that there are some problems with the current secrecy regarding exam material, it is important to acknowledge the potential benefits of disclosing what material will be covered.

We all know that students get excited when a professor tells them a question that will be on the exam. It almost seems like authorized cheating. On that subject, disclosing test material would destroy any incentive to cheat. Since students already know the material on the exam, there is no reason to risk getting expelled.

Hectic exam schedules would also become more manageable. Rather than having to memorize the history of the world, 734 Spanish infinitives, and 392 organic compounds, students would be able to learn and retain the core information for each class. And disclosure would reduce student frustration. Rather than feeling like hours of studying weren’t rewarded with appropriate test questions, diligent students can demonstrate their hard work on an exam designed to test specific knowledge.

Although many students would revel in the idea of banning tests altogether, that option is less than likely. So my plan would be to have more focused quizzes and fewer tests; this way, knowledge is continually retained. Professors would divulge the questions on midterms and final exams so that students don’t feel overloaded and unrewarded. Students wouldn’t “understudy;” rather, they would focus on the exact information that the professor deems important. Such a plan would ensure that students learn what they need to, become motivated to study, better understand and retain the material, and prepare for midterms and final exams. I don’t recall the properties of a rhombus, and I don’t know what a polar covalent bond is, but changing the secretive nature of exams would ensure that I remember more than what I forget.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 17th, 2003 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.