Paper Example on Tests Approach Proposed by O'Malley

O'Malley Pro-Argument

Testing is the process of evaluating students to assess how much they have been able to retain from previous learning activities. O'Malley argues that academic testing should be consistent and more often to promote higher student learning and improve learning outcomes for the students. The author proposes that students should be able to do the work at the same time during the lectures and the class discussions and advice that the tests should last for only 20 minutes approximately. O'Malley is convinced that when the professors give frequent tests and feedback the students can perform even better in major examinations. Another argument that encourages frequent tests posits that students improve their study habits when they are given tests now and then. Lastly, the pro argument towards frequent testing is that students can overcome the negative behavior of procrastination and reduces anxiety which O'Malley links with poor performance.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Counter Argument

In the essay, the primary objection to O'Malley's argument is that the time allocated is not enough to comprehensively test the students. The more testing approach that is being advanced by O'Malley is not sustainable in the long-term and shifts the objective of learning to that of taking tests instead of understanding the course content. Sustainable learning is that which leaves an impression on the students by increasing their knowledge and ability to use the same in the future. In the question of the purpose of learning it is clear that the primary objective of learning is to improve the life of the learner by understanding the concepts that are being taught.

The argument of more tests and more learning deviates from this important learning principle which makes learning less meaningful for the students because they focus on learning to do the frequent tests and not to understand and apply the acquired knowledge in the future. Jones and Egley (2007, p. 232) argue that many teachers and parents are against the more tests approach to learning because they recognize the negative impacts it has on learning and teaching practices. Teaching that is based on understanding and the teaching facts are connected to the concepts can only be achieved when the educators are provided with an excellent environment to support learners through quality professional development and the pressure caused by frequent tests is detrimental to learning (Jones and Egley (234). In this case, learning with understanding is more difficult to achieve and more demanding but has more significant benefits to the students compared to the test based learning which promotes memorizing facts.

More testing approach to learning discourages all rounded student development because there are many aspects of knowledge and practical experience that students will miss out by spending a great deal of time doing tests. Proper education should be all rounded and should encourage students to experience the actual application of knowledge as well as appreciate the student's talents. The culture of more tests limits the ability of the students to be involved in all rounded activities because time is taken from activities such as music, physical education, and art to create extra minutes for tests after every chapter or unit of learning. Arts play a significant role in promoting well-rounded learners who can be able to solve greater life problems. Schools have changed their cultures to more reputation focused learning environment through test-based results which discourage many poor performing students who are unable to memorize information from lessons which is detrimental to their future academic development. Therefore, the change in the education culture to that of more tests causes greater stress and eliminates opportunities for the students to be relaxed as well as develop in other spheres (English et al. 3). Therefore, well-rounded education programs promote the development of talents, and the tests are purpose driven instead of frequent tests that encourage the students to memorize instead of understanding the taught content.

The current testing more approach of education which mainly aims at increasing teachers' accountability results in learning imbalances because it disenfranchises some learners who are unable to memorize information for the frequent weekly tests. According to Dunlosky et al. schools should adopt self-testing and distributed practice instead of frequent tests to help ensure that all students understand the course concepts (Dunlosky et al. 5). In this case, the frequent tests approach proposed by O'Malley is not effective because of causing a divide among the students based on the ability to memorize information and can disadvantage and discourage some students which affect the students in the long run.

Conclusion

In conclusion, more testing proposed by O'Malley does not live up to the educational objective of understanding and the learner development because it focuses more on academic performance while reducing the time that the students require for other practical activities such as physical exercises, music, and art. Students can benefit more through distributed practice which can be carried out in groups and promote greater students participation and understanding. The more testing approach is impractical because it does not recognize the goal of education and learning which is to promote understanding and student's development.

Works Cited

Dunlosky, John, et al. "Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14.1 (2013): 4-58.

English, et al. "College and career readiness begins with a well-rounded education: Opportunities under the Every Student Succeeds Act." (2017).

Jones, Brett D., and Robert J. Egley. "Learning to take tests or learning for understanding? Teachers' beliefs about test-based accountability." The Educational Forum. Vol. 71. No. 3. Taylor & Francis Group, 2007.