Cheatproof Examinations HORACE G. DEMING University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
EVERY lecturer has dreamed of some device by which students could be roused to full attention and supersensitive alertness during every moment of a lecture. With small lecture groups, most of us have tried the combined lecture-quiz. By this device even a dull lecturer may compel attention. A good one may even ignite interest. Yet the lecture-quiz is usually completely oral, and so is limited to groups not much larger than thirty. The lecturer is apt to feel that his task is to emit thoughtstimulating particles of some sort, with sufficient velocity to penetrate skulls. The maximum effective range of these particles, under lecture-room conditions, seems to be about twenty meters. With large lecture groups, one might interrupt or close a lecture with a written recitation, a t the risk of encouraging dishonesty; but the problems of discipline, grading papers, and keeping records are discouraging. So, after trying various expedients, we havc hit upon a competitive lecture-quiz, which we think makes the lectures more effective instruments of instruction and at t.he same time offers a plan for examinations that are nearly cheatproof. Under this plan, lectures are limited to topics that would seem to benefit most from experimental demonstration. We have often wondered why lecturers in every subject attempt to cover nonexperimental topics that would seem to be well presented in the text. Are textbooks in all subjects completely ineffective as instruments of instruction? Or are students just inadequately trained in the art of getting information from books? But if lectures are limited to topics needing visual demonstration, there is time enough, during each lecture hour, for several quiz intervals, in each of which one or two questions are asked that determine which students understand and can apply what has just been said. Students are asked to enter the questions asked and their answers in the body of their lecture notes. A line ruled in the margin may distinguish this part of their notes from the rest. Toward the end of the lecture period each student exchanges his notes with (and has them graded by) a competitor in an adjoining or neighboring seat, on the theory that a competitor is always critical. The last fifteen minutes of each period are always spent in discussing what should have been answered for each question, and how much each question counts toward the total score for the paper.
*. The questions asked are obviously not limited t o those that test ability to comprehend and apply what has just been stated and recorded in the notes. They may continuously incorporate ideas that have been presented in earlier lectures, hence may serve as a continuous review. The plan is made self-administering, and the results of the quizzes are made self-recording, with the aid of "hook-boards," presently described. Soon after the beginning of the semester the students in each quiz section are arranged in order of rank, as determined by a "placement examination." In the lecture room, where the different quiz sections are combined, each quiz section is given a separate block of seats. Then the plan of competitive quizzes may be used in both the lecture and quiz periods, if desired, and the same hook-board keeps track of attendance in both lecture and quiz. The hook-boards, one for each quiz section, are wood or plywood sheets, with rows of hooks, ranged beneath rows of numbers that give lecture-seat and quiz-seat numbers. On each hook is a tag giving the name of the student who at t.he moment has attained the rank in competitive quizzes that entitles h i to that seat. The procedure changes a t alternate meetings. At one meetinz each odd-numbered student comuetes with the next h&her-ranked even number; at thenext meeting each even nnmber competes with the next higher-ranked odd number. So, throughout the semester, each student challenges the one of next higher rating, then (at the next following meeting) defends his position against the one of next lower rating. The spirit of competition nearly cancels temptation to mutual aid. The members of a competing pair switch seats if the challenger wins. A second switch is then permitted if any student 6nds he has just won a higher score than the lower member of the next higher-ranked pair. Anyone may thus advance one or two positions toward the top of the quiz group, or may drop one or two positions toward the bottom of the group, a t every meeting. A tied score is awarded to the lower ranked member of the competing pair. Arguments may be settled in any prescribed way, for instance by reference to anyone near t,he top of the class. An accurate att,endance record is possible in spite of the constantly changing seating arrangement. At the beginning of each meeting, the lecture assistant or a "group secretary" notes vacant seats, gets the corresponding names from the hook-board, then (to prevent
570
JOURNAL O F CHEMICAL EDUCATION
errors) lists absentees on the blackboard. At the end of the hour the winning member of each competing pair has the duty of shifting tags on the hook-board. Since each board carries only ten to twenty pairs of names, and positions on these are switched only about once in every two contests, only about five to ten students need access to each hook-board at the end of each meeting, to switch tags. An absence automatically shifts the absentee two places toward the rear. A few accumulated absences may make a poor student trail so hopelessly that he drops out, sunk without a trace. Rank attained in the competitive quizzes by the end of the semester may he translated into a percentage grade by whatever may be considered to be a "normal distribution curve." Then the median of student opinion may determine how this percentage shall he averaged with others to obtain a "course grade." Though the plan mas designed to create an improved race of students, it has improved their instructor in ways not to be despised. He has learned to bring lectures down to earth and make them pertinent and helpful. He has been compelled t o plan every lecture carefully, with clocked interludes, appropriately spaced, for thought-provoking questions. These questions may ask for deductions from experimental observations just made, or may call for anticipation of manipulations next to come. The discussion of these questions during the final 15 minutes of the lecture hour will give the instructor a chance to observe that his wording of questions was often faulty, obscure, or misleading. So, he should himself keep a set of lecture notes, for the benefit of future classes, which \vill finally come to be taught by one who in judgment, experience, and capacity for
clarity and precision of expression ranks not far below the archangels. Students, on their part, chiefly benefit by being trained to deal with questions that demand thought, rather than merely memorizing. So the final examination, without too great a shock to the frail and fearful, may consist entirely of questions of that type. Lecture notes, reference books, or any other aid to thinking is permitted. The preparation of cribs and ponies is encouraged, as being an attempt to judge what ideas are important and to bring them together in a form tliat is readily reviewed. Since we insist on a detailed exposition of steps in reasoning, a correct numerical answer, obtained from a neighbor by what may appear to be telepathy, is of little aid. Even a direct appeal to one's friend Charlie Jones is apt to be rebuffed, because Charlie drew a different set of questions or is too busy to be bothered. One might suppose that any subject worthy of a place in a college cumculum might furnish questions for a final examination, to test capacity for thought. That capacity includes such factors as the ability to discriminate between the essential and nonessential, to perceive the limitations of generalizations, to make a selection among conflicting data, to make valid approximations, to find needed information in books. To exploit these manifold possibilities the specialist needs the help of experts in the art of framing examinations. There is the opportunity, too, when a choice of questions is permitted, of determining whether a student has actually read broadly a t the level of his presumed attainments and gained something from his reading. That should be one of our objectives, even in chemistry.
We have d e h e d science as a. series of concepts or conceptual schemes (theories) arising out of experiment or observation and leding to new experiments and observations. . . . The transition t o a new theory is seldom easy; old ideas are apt to be tenacious. Looking beck a t the history of any branch of science we o m see that a new oonceptual scheme (theory) comes to be accepted hecause it is s t least as satisfactory as the older one in relating all the known facts in a simple way and because i t proves t o be mare fruitful of new experiments. The latter outcome is clearly a matter for the future, so that there can be no way to determine in advance whether a new concept or conceptual scheme will prove xceptable in this double sense; nor can one foretell how soon the next major advance will occur.-by James B. Conant
