How do you reconcile the apparent likelihood that test-taking is also a vehicle to education? How do you respond to the fact that failing a test, or otherwise bombing on an assignment, can still generate an educational effect? Do you think grading should be reformed to reflect this, or not? If so, how?
For me, I have very mixed feelings on tests, as it takes a particular sort of student to perform well under pressure and a short time-span. In one case last year, one of my best students had slow and borderline illegible handwriting. It was very difficult to grade him accurately, and so I suggested that he approach disabilities services to get permission to type his exams. I had done the same in high school, because I have very slow handwriting. He did, and the university turned him down because they demanded a doctor's note and a fee of a couple hundred dollars. It's tough to deal with these things sometimes...
I like the idea of having different options for how to compose the grade. I.E. having the choice of written or oral exams, or the alternative of a few essays. That can accommodate peoples different strengths while still testing their knowledge.
If there are to be tests, I would prefer that there be many of them, worth relatively little. I.E. bi-weekly ones, to make sure that people are keeping up with things and that concepts / facts are sticking. I've taken a few language classes like this (French, Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian), and it does a good job of reinforcing things.
I'm opposed to reforming the grading system to accomodate failure though. This is what they've done in high schools in my home province: percentile grades were eliminated in 2003, replaced with letters. 'F' was not one of them; the lowest is 'S' for 'Some progress'. Likewise, the most negative comment teachers can choose from now is "Needs Improvement". The only way a student could fail is if they didn't hand in the work. Increasingly, the logic behind the schoolboard seems to be, "Johnny can't read, but he sure feels good about himself!"
By modifying things to avoid competition or failure, you end up hurting the brightest students, some of whom lose interest out of boredom. Failing is no fun, to be sure. I've still got the F on my transcript from bombing Calculus in my freshman year. But it's part of life, not just in school but outside of it. If someone doesn't like to fail, then they should try harder, not just take satisfaction in the praise they get for making the effort.
But I do think that the grading system could be given more flexibility to focus more on what knowledge kids have taken in, rather than investing 45% of the grade on an exam that only tests one outlet for expression.
