INSIDE DOUGLAS COLLEGE / MARCH 27, 1990

Essay Tests II

Because we wanted to enhance students’ potential
for success in writing across the curriculum, we de-
signed an outline that described how to write essay
tests (see Innovation Abstracts, Vol. IX, No. 25). Stu-
dents struggling with the writing experience convinced
us that they should be more involved in selecting
content about which they were required to write.

While the students were able to define, describe, and
give examples from text and lecture material, the
overwhelming evidence was that students have
difficulty integrating, synthesizing, or developing
unique ideas about the concepts. As the result of in-
depth interviews with students and developmental
education faculty in English and speech, it was deter-
mined that students have difficulty expressing them-
selves without “ownership” of the material. STU-
DENTS WRITE AND SPEAK BETTER WHEN THEY
WRITE AND SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING THEY
REALLY KNOW.

Thus, a variety of approaches to student test-taking
has been initiated, with the express purpose of giving
students more control over the material. The use and
relative success of each method appear to be dependent
upon several factors:

1. the relative writing ability as determined from
a writing sample, collected at the beginning of
the quarter;

the relative complexity of the concepts; and

3. the synergy of the class members’ interaction.

N

All questions are distributed to the students at least
a week before the test. Depending upon the content,
the questions may be distributed at the beginning of
the learning unit as “study guides.” The methods of
essay testing which appear to provide ownership
include:

1. students selecting questions at test time from a
pre-selected list,

. students selecting questions before the testing
date from a pre-selected list of questions,

3. individual students generating their own ques-
tions,

. groups generating their own questions,

. some combination of #3 and #4,

6. students weighing value of questions/ answers

(each student decides how much of his/her

nN

1

test grade he/she wants particular questions to
affect).

With each of these methods, I have adopted a
variety of “open note” testing procedures. Again, the
approach depends upon writing ability, complexity of
concepts, and synergy of the class. These include:

1. a 3x5 card for all questions,

2. a 3x5 card for each question,

3. a one-page note sheet for all (selected) ques-
tions.

The notes that students bring with them to the test
further enhance their sense of control, and the simple
process of reducing content to notes appears to help
most students write better.

Different combinations are worth a try, and (perish
the thought) students might even be asked to select the
mcethod(s) they feel helps them learn best.

Jerry Clavner, Professor, Social Sciences
For further information, contact the author at Cuya-

hoga Community College, 4250 Richmond Road,
Warrensville Township, OH 44122-6195.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

February 23, 1990, Vol. Xil, No. 6
©The University of Texas at Austin, 1990
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

2

 

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD),

EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscnptions are available to nonconsor-
tium members for $40 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundaton.
Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and once during the summer. ISSN 0199-106X.

—_

~/