Currently, I am taking a philosophy class, and it's not the easiest class but not the hardest (I think Music Theory is the hardest). Through class lectures and readings/writings, I was able to know myself as a 'knower' and most importantly, how I obtain knowledge. How do I know that I 'know' that information? I don't... I am brainwashed everyday by the society. But it's tough to stay out of the sun and the society and be myself. In fact, if I were to be excluded, I would be like Emily Dickinson (very strange woman). I am sure that I obtain knowledge through development process, repetition, guidance, visual, arts, and sounds. But, how can I know instead of being sure. What if I don't want to know but go with the flow based on my perception?
I am just playing around, but these are the type of questions that we have to face in ToK class. But today's post is not about my Tok--well it could be. It's about the realization of tests and exams. Now... I am not posting this so I can share my excuses, I think others should know and re-think about the creation of tests/exams.
On January 15th, 2013, I wrote this as my Google+ Status:
"If a test or an exam is created by group of people or a person, then it doesn't measure students' knowledge of the subject because the people who made the test might be stupid and students might be smarter than them. If not, then how do you expect a student to exceed or pass the exam if it took bunch of hours and effort from people (not a person) to create that exam? Exactly, stop judging intelligence through exams. When I die, I don't think Lord is going to ask if I made a 4.0 in high school or passed my exams. It's what I have developed through those challenges and stupidity that the society makes all the time. Just putting that out there."
Am I the only one who think it this way?
I mean, think about it. Almost all the exams that we take as students, are all created by "group" of people. Not a person (it could be but usually not--there's always a person who revises it and etc.) but a groups or group of people. So, if all those thinkers are creating one form of a test, then how can those different intelligence test students' knowledge. It can't because when a student is taking the exam, he or she is using her only one brain. But, the exam was not made with one intelligence! It was made through process, time, and multiples of intelligent scholars out there. It's not balanced at all. Let's look at a Devil (Now, I am not praising him. I would never praise him; if I did then I don't exist, but even if I don't exist, no one should praise him. I am Christian and I will try my best to stay that way). According to theology studies, apparently, devil has an intelligence of three men. But, what if he had one intelligence? He would probably fail at his foolish job and maybe, the world might be better. However, because he has those three intelligence of three men, he is extremely manipulative and making our world terrible. This is just like an exam--if an exam has three men's intelligence, then how can student's accomplish or succeed in taking that exam? It's logically impossible. If a man who weighs 300 pounds and he fights against a young man who weighs only 130 pounds, who will win? Logically, the 300 pounds. But what if, the 130 pound man wins? Obviously, it was a luck and it was through God's help. Goliath versus David perhaps? David won, but how? Scientifically, he had better techniques of defending himself--the strategy to throw rock pebbles with a strong force. Religiously, God was working and fighting with him. So, an exam... if a student exceeds or gets a good grade, then it is luck. But ideally, he or she has a higher chance to fail. Maybe, those "intelligent" guys were stupid so it was hard to catch the silly mistakes? Or, it may have been 2-infinite intelligence vs. one working intelligence. Can we stop this foolish and unmeasurable tests? But how can we test people? You don't need to. If one is good at that subject, then he or she is good at it. Need proof? Then meet the person not through papers and ink.
No comments:
Post a Comment