Memorization doesn't mean that kids even understand what they know--that comes at level 2!
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.
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.
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.
