09.06.04
Exams are like chances to score in a game. Above are some descriptors and rules for "the game of university." In short, if you know the amount of content that is considered a passing percentage for a course from class meetings, textbooks and references, handouts, assignments, teacher recommendations and corrections, then you score and are "safe." You win the game.
"Three strikes and you're out" refers to American baseball. A batter gets three chances to hit a pitched (thrown) ball with a bat (piece of wood or metal, not be be confused with the nocturnal creature with wings). If the batter doesn't succeed, he is "out," and this is bad for his batting average (individual score). It is hard to be a winner if you strike out.
California, interestingly, has a three-strikes law. If you are arrested and convicted of three crimes, you go to prison for a long time. But this is another story . . .
In (this) university game you get three chances to pass an exam. If you don't pass, you don't go to prison, and your team is not hurt by your failure. Only you suffer(?) defeat and have to take a course again, or something, another time, plus exam, perhaps a year later. With regard to the three chances or attempts, if you miss the first scheduled sitting to take (not "write") the exam, well, then there are only two chances left to take it, and so on.
To cope with serving fair and comparable exams for three sittings, some teachers prepare three versions of an exam. Maybe they're called versions A, B, and C. If you sit for the first attempt and you get version C, well, next time it will be B or A. However, for the first sitting, versions B and A have been used with other students. (You know why.) No matter, this is how it goes in this game as it is often played.
What's wrong with this picture? One, if there are different knowledges and skills tested at any time, are the grades (scores) achieved comparable? Maybe. Maybe not. Tests and exams only test what they have on them, and test-takers do more or less well with that and only that which is on the exam. Sitting for different sets of questions results quite naturally in differences. And thus, usually students and student achievement scores cannot be compared with certainty with what different tests or exams show.
Two, if little Honza, a student, takes three chances to pass, is he just as qualified as those who took the same or similar test and passed earlier? Doubtful. He has the benefits of prior test-taking experience and more time to prepare for a test he can easily get a good idea of from those who have taken that same, exact test. No, Honza, regardless of your score, you are different in kind and quality from those who passed the exam at the first sitting.
One student, I will call her Petra, had a good point related to this. She said that taking the exam three times gave you an idea of how much more you have to study to pass. I like this objection. It is like the world is a glass of beer, and it is half full rather than half empty. But I thought in this part of the world people, including students, like beer a lot? Are they satisfied with half full and the rest will appear because the barman is a good and generous Pepa? (There may be a logical fallacy here, but I will ignore thinking about it. Glasses of beer is a good metaphor if you don't think about it another half minute.)
Third problem. It is laudable (a good thing) to give people second and third chances in life. But for performance--quality--assessment, after a term or two of classes and hopefully independent effort, a singular chance should be sufficient and much, much simpler. By the end of a course plus exam preparation, it is reasonable to expect that little Jitka, also a student, can answer just over half of the questions prepared for her to test her competence (knowledge, skills, abilities) in the subject. Well done, Jitka. I guess.
Just over half? What is this? A reflection of a system which tolerates and in fact encourages mediocrity? Think about it. If you guess the answer for all questions posed on an exam, you'll probably get fifty percent correct. Try flipping (tossing) a coin (guessing), if you can't read or understand the English question. You'll still get about fifty percent as your score. This is the law of averages and chance and all of that. To get ten or fifteen percent more correct, you then probably only need a little English. Show up in class a few times, have a glance now and then at a textbook or other learning resource, do a few assignments, and chat with those who've already taken the exam--they either passed or failed it, doesn't matter. Receiving a passing score under 70 percent appears in this light no great achievement--fifty percent chance plus fifteen percent material you can learn rather passively. But perhaps this too, the matter of acceptable passing scores, is another story.
For over ten years, EFL teachers in this country who have come from abroad have questioned and tried to circumvent, or somehow cope with, the three-strikes approach to the university exams game. Frankly, it appears quite blazen to us. But, hey, we are from somewhere else with our own crazy ideas and values.
Now, you have read the above, my understanding of and questions about the game. The next issue (matter to think about) is: How does this teacher circumvent or cope with all this, and is his way defensible particularly in view of the objections raised here? And why does s/he want to circumvent (go around) or cope (somehow work with)? The answer to this last question is easy. Teachers are like the referees in the match, trying to ensure that winners are certifiable winners. That is why we even bother to circumvent or cope in the face of a system which has apparent flaws (things wrong). Now, if you are interested in responses to the first questions in this paragraph, read on.
But I will not be writing for you to read. Look for yourself into how to test and measure academic competencies, what are some different grading methods, what is valid, validity, validation . . . and try to answer this question: Do the developing values and practices, even the way of life, in your society match what is being done in university departments and classrooms? Is the university game good preparation for what it will be like upon advancing from the university level player to that required in the-world-of-work game? After all, you are in a program to prepare yourself as a future teacher. You need to know and question what you are doing, and getting yourself into.
I suggest you look at what this education business is all about, from the inside and the outside--from the perspective (view) you have as an educated member of society who will lead and guide younger people in those institutions we call schools.
That's my two cents (idea, contribution) concerning "Three strikes and you're out."
