Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Open Book Tests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 17553" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>I've done a few open book exams. One VITAL rule - YOU MUST KNOW WELL IN ADVANCE. </p><p></p><p>It is just not right to suddenly make it an open book exam at the last minute. Knowing that having books with me will be pointless, I leave my books at home when going for a standard test. I carry a pencil case and that's about it.</p><p></p><p>To study for an open book exam - you need to know your books. Know where to find stuff, know your subject well enough (not necessarily in specific facts) to be able to USE it, demonstrate that you have an understanding that goes way beyond simple rote knowledge.</p><p></p><p>Part of preparation also involves preparing your books. I took one open book exam using a friend's notes. I like his notes better than mine because he colour-coded everything. I spent time studying his notes and cross-references but the books alone would not have got me through. I had to know how to USE those books and a total novice could not have done so, in under a week.</p><p></p><p>ALL the tests I've done were timed. The open book exams were no shorter, but they were harder in a lot of ways. With one subject we had to argue the merits of scientist A's views compared to Scientist B's, given new evidence which was presented in a chart. We had the textbooks which gave intricate detail of both Scientist A's and Scientist B's work, but we had to be able to understand and interpret it, as well as take those thoughts further into originality, to be able to answer the question.</p><p></p><p>What I valued about open book exams - they were a test of our practical abilities to think, to use the knowledge gained in the subject and be able to give a logical, considered answer NOT dependent on rote knowledge. The exam was written with that in mind. </p><p></p><p>An exam designed for closed book should be written very differently. It should be asking more basic, solid questions on knowledge as well as asking the student to demonstrate what they have learned. </p><p></p><p>I've done more closed book exams than open - I prefer open, as long as I know my subject and have plenty of time to prepare. I feel that it's a more accurate test of how well I can work in that subject. In the real world, working in a job trained by the study I've done, it's an open book situation. Someone would come into my lab with a problem - I would reach for my books or check the database. To try to resolve a problem without double-checking the information is just too risky.</p><p></p><p>A surgeon removing a tumour doesn't work blind - he has the patient's scans and X-rays available to him for reference. It's the safest, most accurate way to do it. I'd rather have the surgeon who is being cautious and referring to the necessary reference material than one who is working from memory. "Hmm, I think the tumour bulges out just - here. No it doesn't. Whoops!"</p><p></p><p>They should never dump an open book exam on anyone at the last minute - that's just plain wrong. And they should never give the same exam as open or closed - that's not right either. These two exam types need a different approach in writing them, as well as studying for them and sitting them.</p><p></p><p>Open book is NOT easier. But I do think, done properly, it can be fairer. It takes out the advantage to the person with the trick memory.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 17553, member: 1991"] I've done a few open book exams. One VITAL rule - YOU MUST KNOW WELL IN ADVANCE. It is just not right to suddenly make it an open book exam at the last minute. Knowing that having books with me will be pointless, I leave my books at home when going for a standard test. I carry a pencil case and that's about it. To study for an open book exam - you need to know your books. Know where to find stuff, know your subject well enough (not necessarily in specific facts) to be able to USE it, demonstrate that you have an understanding that goes way beyond simple rote knowledge. Part of preparation also involves preparing your books. I took one open book exam using a friend's notes. I like his notes better than mine because he colour-coded everything. I spent time studying his notes and cross-references but the books alone would not have got me through. I had to know how to USE those books and a total novice could not have done so, in under a week. ALL the tests I've done were timed. The open book exams were no shorter, but they were harder in a lot of ways. With one subject we had to argue the merits of scientist A's views compared to Scientist B's, given new evidence which was presented in a chart. We had the textbooks which gave intricate detail of both Scientist A's and Scientist B's work, but we had to be able to understand and interpret it, as well as take those thoughts further into originality, to be able to answer the question. What I valued about open book exams - they were a test of our practical abilities to think, to use the knowledge gained in the subject and be able to give a logical, considered answer NOT dependent on rote knowledge. The exam was written with that in mind. An exam designed for closed book should be written very differently. It should be asking more basic, solid questions on knowledge as well as asking the student to demonstrate what they have learned. I've done more closed book exams than open - I prefer open, as long as I know my subject and have plenty of time to prepare. I feel that it's a more accurate test of how well I can work in that subject. In the real world, working in a job trained by the study I've done, it's an open book situation. Someone would come into my lab with a problem - I would reach for my books or check the database. To try to resolve a problem without double-checking the information is just too risky. A surgeon removing a tumour doesn't work blind - he has the patient's scans and X-rays available to him for reference. It's the safest, most accurate way to do it. I'd rather have the surgeon who is being cautious and referring to the necessary reference material than one who is working from memory. "Hmm, I think the tumour bulges out just - here. No it doesn't. Whoops!" They should never dump an open book exam on anyone at the last minute - that's just plain wrong. And they should never give the same exam as open or closed - that's not right either. These two exam types need a different approach in writing them, as well as studying for them and sitting them. Open book is NOT easier. But I do think, done properly, it can be fairer. It takes out the advantage to the person with the trick memory. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Open Book Tests
Top