Thought 1: Varied Assessment
During finals, I was thinking a lot about assessment, and I think its 
worth discussing if our current assessment tradition is the best one.
Currently, timed essays have close to a monopoly on final assessments in the liberal arts. Why not have the option of showing your knowledge through a timed discussion with the assessor?
Benefits of allowing an assessed discussion:
-It provides fairness to those that are better at speaking fast (as opposed to writing fast).
-It prevents over- or under- explaining. If you start saying too much, the assessor could say “I see you understand this…keep going.” If you don’t say enough, the assessor could say “what do you mean by that? Please elaborate.” Overall, it provides a live, interactive assessment.
-One can use other things aside from their voice to explain their points. They can point to things, draw images/graphs and interact with them, use hand gestures, and/or annunciate certain words.
Prebuttals:
-Some might say that writing is what one faces in the real world. I agree*- writing is what most academics use to articulate their points. However, two prebuttals: for one, memorized, timed writing rarely occurts in the real world (aside from journalists and rapid-response teams). Most points are articulated through thoughtful, comprehensive, researched essays written over a free period of time. Secondly, though there has been a resurgence in text-culture, writing is giving way to other forms of articulation, with speech and image-interaction rising in importance (just ask Al Gore if writing about Global Warming or doing a PowerPoint on Global Warming was more effective). Why can’t assessments reflect this valueing of speech, discussion and image-interaction?
-Some might say that discussion-based assessment is biased towards those who can speak confidently. I agree, but is not written-based assessment biased towards those who can write better? Either way, some important skill gets in the way…why not give the option to those who are conversationalists the right to prove their knowledge through conversation like we give the option to those who are strong writers the right to provide their knowledge through writing?
Cons:
-Writing has anonymity, whereas in-person conversations do not. However, could not one have a conversation with a different assessor? Yet still, one can more strongly influence an assessor unfairly through in-person conversations than with writing (i.e. a charismatic person can unfairly influence the process more strongly in person than they can with just writing).
-Writing can be edited…conversations cannot be as easily edited. I can go back and re-write something in a blue book assessment, but I cannot as more fluidly go back in a conversation.
*Please note, however, that I am not endorsing the basing of schooling completely on “the real world.”
Any thoughts?
