(2) Design questions that tap this detailed knowledge. My favorite form is a multiple true-false question—
e.g., "Which of the following is/are correct?"—that is followed by five statements.

(3) Make some or all of your questions "window" questions—i.e., purposefully open to alternative
interpretations. For example:

Which of the following is/are true about Australopithecus africanus?
a. Raymond Dart said it was a hominid.
b. Raymond Dart said it was a transitional ape, not yet human.
c. W. Le Gros Clark said it was a hominid.
d. a,bandc
e. bandc

The ambiguity of the question stems from the history of the use and significance of the term "hominid" in
defining what it means to be human. When Dart found A. africanus in the 1920's, the Neo-Latin term Hominidae
was available in terminological literature to describe closely related primates, but it had not taken on its modern
emphasis on bipedalism. When Dart wrote, paleontologists assumed that for an early fossil to be considered
human, it had to have a large brain, even though other aspects of its anatomy were primitive. The Piltdown
Hoax had a large cranium and ape-like jaw and was widely accepted until the 50’s as the predicted transitional
form. A. africanus had too small a brain and was frequently interpreted as an infant chimpanzee whose skull
had not yet taken on the more massive contours of ape adulthood. What was puzzling about the post-cranial
remains of A. africanus was the clear evidence of bipedalism. The ilium of the pelvic inominates was broad and
flared, almost like that of modern humans. A small-brained, bipedal creature was the reverse of the large-
brained, skeletally ape-like creature which was the accepted model of early man. The same problem was
confronted in the 1930’s and 40’s with Homo erectus of Java and China. Franz Weidenreich, who succeeded
Davidson Black as director of the site of Choukoutien, was an expert on the characteristics of the pelvis and foot
which make upright posture possible. His classic studies of Peking Man supported Black’s contention that
Peking Man was a primitive human, not a transitional ape, because he walked upright.

Technically, then, the answer to the multiple-choice question is "e.". When W. Le Gros Clark called A.
africanus a hominid, he was using the modern label by which early forms are now recognized as being capable of
entering the human cultural niche and was expressing the modern emphasis on bipedalism vs. a large brain. ©
Dart called A. africanus a transitional ape ("pithecus") because at that time a large brain was considered more
definitive of humanness than was bipedalism. If during discussion of the exam a student defends the answer
"d" by recapitulating the history of the development of the concept of "hominid" and by stressing that Dart
emphasized the position of the foramen magnum (the "big hole" through which the spinal cord enters the
cranium) as demonstrating that A. africanus was bipedal, I give him full credit.

Why not just give an essay question on the evolution of the concept of hominid? Other teachers may find
essays more useful and reliable. I have found that when students have to struggle and fight for a point, they
are more likely to grasp the significance of an idea. An active confrontation of chaos makes cosmos more likely.
Also, this technique tends to make them more self-conscious about their thinking process. I tell the students
that my purpose is not to trip them up with tricky questions, but to get them to examine the logical steps in
their reasoning by which they arrive at an answer. I reward them for dealing actively with ambiguity. I could
legitimately mark a "d" response wrong, but I would lose the opportunity to use the review of the test as an
added teaching device. And once the students realize that the test review is a forum for display of logical
reasoning and mobilization of knowledge, they attack the tests themselves in a more relaxed, imaginative frame
of mind. The discussions which follow are challenging and awe-inspiring in their display of applied knowledge.

I accept only certain types of argument, and all arguments must be based on specific knowlege, not
hypothetical could-haves. In other words, I am not promoting a relaxation of educational standards or an

individualistic definition of reality. I want to stimulate imagination without relaxing standards. I believe it i
important, and possible, to teach the responsible use of the imagination. LE! cE
col

a Ane
Susan Parman pov oP

Rancho Santiago College ARC =e?
For further information, contact the author at Rancho Santiago College, 17th at Bristol, Sa CA 92670.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor
December 6, 1985, Vol. VII, No. 31
INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National institute for Staff and Organizational Development, EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsortium members for $35 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and monthly during the summer.

® The University of Texas at Austin, 1985
Further duplication is permitted only by MEMBER institutions for their own personnel. ISSN 0199-106