The prompt on learning immediately brought to my mind the Neutron Diffusion course I mentioned early in the class. I brought up then, and want to bring up again, the unique final the professor designed for this course.
The course’s material dealt mostly with understanding and using mathematical equations to approximate the position and dynamics of neutrons (tiny neutrally-charged particles) as they move about a nuclear reactor. Because neutrons are so small and move so quickly, they don’t always obey the “classical” laws of physics that relatively large and slow things do. Through the use of various formulas and mathematical approximations, the general behavior of neutrons can be modeled.
(It should be noted that the value of this course was immediately verified. Not only did the concepts introduced in this class appear in almost all of the next semester’s courses within the same department, countless graduates confirmed that neutron-modeling techniques are commonly utilized in actual industry settings.)
The final exam was, as I said in class, of genius design. The exam had one problem, and the professor allowed the entire three-hour period to solve it (although few students stayed past the first hour.) The problem asked the students to model the population of a planet of Klingon people through use of neutron-diffusion equations. The students were to account for Klingon births (corresponding to neutron multiplication,) deaths (neutron absorption,) growth into adulthood (neutron scattering / energy diffusion,) among a number of other aspects. Additionally, and in my mind most importantly, the problem gave directions to include modeling for “any other aspects of Klingon life you can imagine.”
In the class discussion where I brought up this exam, I explained that I was impacted most by the creative aspect of the exam: while it obviously still tested our skill with neutron diffusion equations, the addition of an interesting theme and the prompt to use our imaginations made the exam exciting and fun.
I do not see the creativity of the exam, however, as what makes it successful in measuring the amount of the students’ learning. It was the fact that the exam tested “on-your-feet” skills, instead of dry knowledge, that sets this exam above many of the other’s I’ve taken.
It’s well-known among students that nearly all of the facts and knowledge you “cram” in your brain before the exam are gone by the end of finals. I think this is the mark of unsuccessful exams. If the information has nowhere to be used, it seems to quickly be forgotten. The kind of exams like the one in my neutron diffusion class, however, do not seem to have this fate.
To answer the prompt: successful learning in a course can be characterized by the ability to do something or think about something in a new way. With this in mind, I suppose it could be said that yes, all good learning comes with a kind of personal transformation. Further, evidence of this learning is measurable through exams that require the student to test their new skill or way of thinking. Instead of regurgitating cold facts, a successful learner can use what they’ve learned to analyze something, model something, do something…
I believe that all courses, with a little work, could utilize “on-your-feet” exams, which, if the course successfully presented its content, and the students successfully learned, would verify successful learning.
I'd like to dissect what you have in mind by using the expression "thinking on your feet." It could mean any one of the following, which differ subtly.
ReplyDelete1. The requirement is to transfer basic knowledge to a highly stylize scenario. You'll recall we read some pieces about transfer, both from the National Academy volume and from Bruner. Transfer is a good measure of understanding core concepts. It would measure learning (as distinct from understanding) if you could identify some time earlier in the semester where such transfer would have been too hard a task.
2. This is just like 1, but now add the criterion that it is not obvious how to map the core principles into the stylized situation. So there is new learning in finding and identifying that mapping.
3. This is just like 2, but now add the criterion that all of this is performed rather quickly. You said most of the students were done in under an hour.
Personally, I like 2 better than 3 and better than 1. If cheating weren't an issue, take home exams would be much better measures. (Another deterrent is that they are usually harder to grade.) Quickness measures some sort of mental agility and perhaps that correlates with other forms of understanding, but the slowpoke who thinks deeply is my winner.
Also, you should take a look at Greg's post and the various follow up from that. The prompt asked how do you know whether you've learned something. When you prepare for a final you've got a pretty good idea whether you are ready before taking the test.