Essay
Assessment:
“One-size fits all”!
By Dr Laurence Ajaka, Head of the English Language and Literature Department, The Islamic University of Lebanon, Lebanon
The bewilderment of students when they perceive how the real world works when they land an internship or job in their last year is palpable. It's time to address the issue that has been ignored for too long. While we're busy using euphemistic terms to describe skill development and Outcome-Based Education, we often neglect the pedagogy and syllabus that form the cornerstone of all teaching-learning processes.
The COVID-19 pandemic was considered a golden opportunity to shake off the dust that had gathered over our outdated academic syllabi. Despite all the voices calling for an update on the curriculum, only cosmetic attempts were made. We ought to consider this enforced online platform as an opportunity for re-establishing our pedagogical systems in a manner consistent with the current situation.
The assessment of students was a sore point even before the online crisis. The two latest generations are drastically different from those who preceded them, and yet we are still applying the same notions for their assessments. Since the turn of the century, the validity of assessment methods has been questioned globally, and yet the standardised systems are still in place in the majority of the world.
These methods do not test the skills and intelligence of students and instead forces them to adapt to a unified pattern that definitely doesn’t come in a “one-size fits all”. Any teacher can attest to being surprised by the capabilities of some students who test well in certain criteria and fail abysmally in others. Take, for example, a mechanically-oriented student who is able to pull apart any electronic device and put it back together. They would be an ideal candidate for mechanical engineering, and yet if the student is not proficient in Biology and Chemistry, they won’t be able to enter the science branch in senior secondary school.
By imposing unrealistic expectations of gifted people, we are denying them access to their calling in life. We, therefore, must admit that our assessment systems are flawed and need to be revisited. I believe that is a common ground we need to establish to be able to move forward in designing a fairer assessment system. But how can that be done in such a way that it is practical to instructors and students?
Bloomberg’s Taxonomy tells us that we need to impart knowledge to students, but that knowledge has limited use if it is disconnected from reality. Students undergo years of university-level education and then continue into the working environment where they are shocked by the discrepancies between what they were taught and how they are expected to perform.
The flaw lies in the relentless focus on grades as an assessment instead of knowledge gained. Every student is concerned with nothing but their GPA. It is what they work for and where all their efforts are channelled, resulting in students who retain little to nothing of what they learn, and future employees that need rehabilitation once they enter the workforce. As instructors, it is our job to change that priority into gaining a working understanding of the material given.
The shift to a more dynamic assessment has already started. This was done by pioneers that realised students no longer conformed to past molds. Numerous online platforms are freely available for any teacher who needs help in assessing students online. They can even be valid for the physical classroom setting with some modifications. What is ingenious about these systems is that they allow for different skills and functions. They have activities that test various aspects of intelligence instead of the typical memorisation and rehashing of information.
Students can be divided into groups with similar or complementary skills, depending on the assessment, where they tackle variant situations from various aspects. This fluidity in the approach is something that appeals to the new learners. Since they are digital experts, they are not likely to be moved into exploring what is available to them in a matter of seconds. What they need is the challenge of the questions whose answers are not found on Wikipedia.
Many say these new students are easily demotivated, but the sense of ennui they face is rather because they perceive their skills as not being engaged and are instead only expected to work on retaining facts. As teachers, it falls on us to probe and poke around to engage with what makes them click. A student might be passive in one class, and an active participant in others or in extracurricular activities. Inherently, they are not lazy as most people perceive them; they are what I would prefer to refer to as “selectively-passionate”.
Assessments are not scoring devices. They are vehicles for translating the skills and capabilities of students. They function to create a human being that can operate proficiently in the real world. The 4Cs, communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity, should be an integral part of any assessment. We need to engage students in the class so that they can start communicating with one another. It will not only teach them how and what to ask, but it will modulate their passions to enable them to be team players. This will allow them to collaborate and bring out the best in one another. This is especially crucial in a world where knowledge is becoming particularly specialised that a large group is needed to push through any innovation.
We must provide them with enough puzzling questions and cases that provoke their critical thinking capabilities. This will create intuitive students that do not accept the status quo and always aim for better. This is where their creativity is engaged through their sense of challenge and desire to establish themselves as innovators. The newer generations are already in possession of some of these skills through their digitalised orientation, so it remains up to us to foster an assessment environment that caters to this challenge.