Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Open book tests...

That's what the honors chemistry course was like. You weren't there unless you wanted to be there and if you didn't know the basics you wouldn't have been there to start with! LOL

There are very good reasons to memorize some things, certainly, but I take issue with the notions that memorizing = "actually learning things" (which seems to imply that not memorizing = NOT actually learning) and that there's some mandate to do a lot of memorization in grade school. I don't really accept those premises.

In Bloom's Taxonomy, memorization is part of the Knowledge level of learning, which is the lowest level. Memorization doesn't mean that kids even understand what they know--that comes at level 2! http://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm

Personally, I have problems with open book tests at the grade school level if the teachers are not going beyond that factual, Knowledge level of Bloom's Taxonomy. Unless the test is really about seeing if the kids know how to use the index and table of contents (which is a valid question for early elementary school kids, and could be what was actually being tested!), then it seems to me that if you give the kids the facts by giving them the book, then the students should be asked to demonstrate higher level thinking skills on the test. I'd argue that the teachers are not writing good tests to make use of the open book model. But IMHO, I don't think an open book test is inherently wrong to use if used correctly, even in grade school.

Precisely!

I don't in any way mean to imply that memorization of facts = learning and therefore not memorizing = not learning. My son (and most every kid on this board) knew his numbers as high as anyone would listen to him count before he was two years old; he didn't know what numbers were actually about, he just knew them. He knew how to read anything you put in front of him by the time he was three years old; he didn't know what most of it meant, but he could read it. The school repeatedly made issue of this, in terms of "lack of comprehension"--his WJIII basic reading score when he was 5 hit the middle of 9th grade, while his comprehension score was mid-second grade. I said yes, but he could have gotten the same reading score two years ago and he wouldn't have had ANY comprehension--if you know how to read, the comprehension grows with time. And that is what I am saying about memorization of basics in grade school. It is important to know basic math facts and basic language skills by heart when you go forth to learn what they are good for and what else you can do with them.


Yes! But what I'm thinking is that if they are truly able to demonstrate higher level thinking skills in relation to the concepts, then the basic facts should already be in their heads. I'm not by any means saying that facts should be memorized in a vacuum, with no idea what they are about; however, I think in some ways the "open book" idea implies that the higher level skills should exist in a vacuum apart from the facts--that it's not important to memorize anything because you can always look it up, and you should spend your time "learning to think" instead. My belief is that it is a lot easier to learn to think if you have things in your head to think *about*, and there might just be a time or two in your life when you won't be able to look something up.

And yes, it is entirely possible that an open book test could be done correctly at any level--but I wouldn't hold my breath.

There are, of course, also the myriad differences in learning styles among students. My son memorizes formulas in college math textbooks for the fun of it--with no idea what the symbols even mean! When he gets to that level of math, he will already know how to write it before he ever learns what it is doing. I, on the other hand, have to know why something works before it's really in my head--the only way I'm likely to memorize a formula is to learn what it's doing first. I'm sure these things make a difference somehow.

I don't think this is true and it's certainly not what I see in my classroom. Students may very clearly be able to explain the differences in philosophy between say Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry but may not care, nor is it particularly relevant what state they are each from. When I use an open book test, it's to test concepts not data management. I would assume this is similar across subject matters. If a student understands which complex chemistry formula to apply in which situation, do they need to have also memorized the formula? I don't believe so.

Sorry, I still disagree, I think. (Though your last paragraph could be something I would write, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you...)

Many GT kids are ready for algebraic problem solving, for example, before they have memorized their times tables. Keeping their advancement on hold until they memorize the chart isn't the best strategy for keeping them engaged with math. You lose them. What's more, they often learn the times tables without much effort once allowed to do algebra because at that point the math facts become useful to them. So in that case, the facts get into their heads only after they get to use the higher level skills.

I think you're right that learning styles and personality are at work here. I have one son who is memorizing the times tables at 5 because he wants to and it's fun for him. OTOH, my 8yo needed to be doing algebra before he was ready to learn his times tables, and he's still not quite 100%. (Those darn 8s!) But frequent use is making the memorization happen in a way that drill-and-kill did NOT.

I like the comparison of math to art that I read somewhere, (though I think you could use this for any concept vs. fact situation): what if you weren't allowed to put pen or crayon or paintbrush to paper until you had memorized every color in the 128-crayon box and got them all right on a series of tests? And then you got tested on styles of brush strokes. And so on. That doesn't make any sense to us. You learn those things by doing. I would argue that treating grade school as memorization-central is much he same thing.

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not anti-knowing things. And I do believe there are some things you just really ought to memorize. But I don't believe that facts *have* to come before concepts...not ever, really. Maybe with reading, just because I don't know how you can read a word without knowing the letters and phonemes first. But if there were a way for a child to get the concept of reading without those letter/sound facts, then I can't see how that would be a bad thing.