So only use open book exams. Or time pressure so people cannot just look everything up.
Education does not require assessment, the primary goal of a university is to provide people with useful knowledge, not mere accreditation.
You're not working for the university, you're working for the industry and employers that want a piece of paper that lets them discriminate by institution; instead of investing into their own workplace aptitude tests or recruitment methodologies.
Well-done assessment can still be metrically valuable as a means of making sure that every student actually absorbs the material and to make adjustments accordingly, and it can also serve as a means of artificial motivation for people who have difficulties self-motivating.
Certainly though, the scoring and credentials are for employers and are shit.
Frequent recall and testing is for many subjects the most effective teaching methodology.
If you have to get rid of lectures, books, workshops, projects, or informal testing; then testing should be the last thing to go.
This is not merely my opinion, it is one of the most reliable results in pedagogical research.
Calcifying the most important teaching methodology with this type of privacy invasive crap is harmful to the pedagogical process.
Students with self-motivation issues benefit most from frequent informal testing that covers small chunks of material.
Formality and privacy invasion only heighten the perfectionism and anxiety issues that constitute much of procrastinating behavior.
Formalized testing most often occurs at the end of semesters, when there is no time left for course correction by teachers or students anyway.
Informal testing can easily fulfill the role of gauging material absorption, and students cheating is then simply at their own peril.
When testing is informal, teachers can just use easy to cheat multiple choice tests, and not waste so much time with grading either.
But in any case, responsibility for ensuring that material is sufficiently understood should be held by students themselves.
It is only formalized exams and accreditation that could require measures to deal with cheating.
But such exams serve no direct function in education, and are entirely about the role of schools and universities under capitalism.
Education absolutely requires assessment, it doesn't require grades that can later be used against you though. Without assessment you have absolutely no clue how well you understand the material, especially in relation to other people in the class.
Remember these are college classes, it's not rote memorization anymore, you usually have to use some type of analysis to get to the right answer on a college exam.
My argument was implicitly about formalized assessment where anti-cheating measures are required.
Even so, most researchers and independent learners are quite capable of gauging their own understanding without any external testing or assessment.
And when people attend lectures simply out of curiosity they can become educated entirely without assessment.
I do not undervalue testing, if anything I would endorse all classes using brief informal testing on a weekly or even daily basis.
But I am opposed to the misuse of testing as metrics for performance. An effective test is one where people make plenty of mistakes, otherwise not much learning is happening.
So only use open book exams. Or time pressure so people cannot just look everything up.
Education does not require assessment, the primary goal of a university is to provide people with useful knowledge, not mere accreditation.
You're not working for the university, you're working for the industry and employers that want a piece of paper that lets them discriminate by institution; instead of investing into their own workplace aptitude tests or recruitment methodologies.
Well-done assessment can still be metrically valuable as a means of making sure that every student actually absorbs the material and to make adjustments accordingly, and it can also serve as a means of artificial motivation for people who have difficulties self-motivating.
Certainly though, the scoring and credentials are for employers and are shit.
Frequent recall and testing is for many subjects the most effective teaching methodology.
If you have to get rid of lectures, books, workshops, projects, or informal testing; then testing should be the last thing to go.
This is not merely my opinion, it is one of the most reliable results in pedagogical research.
Calcifying the most important teaching methodology with this type of privacy invasive crap is harmful to the pedagogical process.
Students with self-motivation issues benefit most from frequent informal testing that covers small chunks of material.
Formality and privacy invasion only heighten the perfectionism and anxiety issues that constitute much of procrastinating behavior.
Formalized testing most often occurs at the end of semesters, when there is no time left for course correction by teachers or students anyway.
Informal testing can easily fulfill the role of gauging material absorption, and students cheating is then simply at their own peril.
When testing is informal, teachers can just use easy to cheat multiple choice tests, and not waste so much time with grading either.
But in any case, responsibility for ensuring that material is sufficiently understood should be held by students themselves.
It is only formalized exams and accreditation that could require measures to deal with cheating.
But such exams serve no direct function in education, and are entirely about the role of schools and universities under capitalism.
deleted by creator
Education absolutely requires assessment, it doesn't require grades that can later be used against you though. Without assessment you have absolutely no clue how well you understand the material, especially in relation to other people in the class.
Remember these are college classes, it's not rote memorization anymore, you usually have to use some type of analysis to get to the right answer on a college exam.
My argument was implicitly about formalized assessment where anti-cheating measures are required.
Even so, most researchers and independent learners are quite capable of gauging their own understanding without any external testing or assessment.
And when people attend lectures simply out of curiosity they can become educated entirely without assessment.
I do not undervalue testing, if anything I would endorse all classes using brief informal testing on a weekly or even daily basis.
But I am opposed to the misuse of testing as metrics for performance. An effective test is one where people make plenty of mistakes, otherwise not much learning is happening.