NUTSHELL NOTES "Teaching tips in a nutshell" - The University of Colorado at Denver's One-page Newsletter for Teaching Excellence

Essay responses allow us to see our students' thought processes that lead to the answers. We may be testing at some higher level of Bloom's taxonomy of thinking—perhaps within the level of synthesis—but discover in a student's answer that he/she lacked the knowledge required to begin synthesis. For example, consider the topic of asbestos, tested by essay at sequentially higher levels of reasoning as described by Bloom's taxonomy (levels in all capital letters).

1. What is asbestos? (KNOWLEDGE)

2. Explain how the physical characteristics of crocidolite asbestos might make it conducive to producing lung damage. (COMPREHENSION)

3. Consider the crystal structures of chrysotile and crocidolite. Why should the most common mineral be the less hazardous? (APPLICATION)

4. Two controversies surround the "asbestos hazard": (1) it's nothing more than a costly bureaucratic creation or (2) it is a hazard that accounts for tens of thousands of deaths annually. What is the basis for each argument? (ANALYSIS)

5. Design a study to reasonably demonstrate the dangers posed by asbestos to the general populace. (SYNTHESIS)

6. Which of the two controversial arguments in Q. 4 above has the best scientific support? (EVALUATION)

When one sees the topic tested at all levels, one realizes that increasing amounts and depth of content knowledge are needed before one can use the higher levels of reasoning described by Bloom. How a student answers such questions allows us to discover the reasoning that students use to produce answers. All of these essay questions could be restated in multiple choice format, but that format provides no way to determine how or why a student made a given choice.

There are also disadvantages to essay tests. The time spent in authoring a test may be small, but the time spent in grading it is often immense. Differences in students' language skills or speeds of composing an answer can produce different test results from students with similar mastery of content and intellectual reasoning abilities. Grades on essay tests also lack consistence; it is easy to catch oneself using different criteria to grade the same question after one has read a number of test answers. Essay answers require time to produce, which may preclude testing of much breadth of knowledge. Assessing both breadth and depth of knowledge may require a combination of essay and short answer testing.

Success is helped by carefully constructing questions and adhering to criteria that we provide in writing for ourselves. Testing should not be an add-on event performed after teaching. Rather, the best time to compose an essay question is BEFORE presenting the material. If, at that time, we formulate the question and the criteria we will use to grade it, we then know exactly where we are going with our instruction, and we will more likely teach the criteria completely. When drafting the test, we need to accurately estimate the time that it may take non-native speakers or methodical thinkers in our classes to craft respectable answers. Consistence is aided by grading the entire set of exams one question at a time. Using an empty lab or conference room with large tables allows us to lay out all the exams to a single question and to move rapidly among them. Moving keeps us from fatigue, and this system helps us to retain the same criteria in mind as we evaluate the answers.
(See survey results, back of this page!)

Faculty are pragmatic in the areas in which they want to increase their skills (items 41-60). Drawing programs to produce visual aids, presentation software, using the web, and obtaining ancillary materials on CD ROM are the technologies in which faculty have the greatest interests.

Of lower interest to faculty are multi-media used for student in-class presentations and providing entire distance-learning courses. To place this in perspective, however, note that all aspirations for use (items 41-60) are high, and "lower interest" in the latter case translates into over 140 faculty with high to moderate interest in creating a distance-learning course.

The areas of highest interest (items 71-80) fall mainly under the area of good teaching practices. For themselves, faculty most want to know how to choose technology that is appropriate for their classes, how to use technology to promote active learning, and to have a support network on campus to help them in their utilization. Faculty most want students to know the information systems of their disciplines, to be able to think critically in order to make good use of information, and to be satisfied with their learning experiences.

Faculty prefer training from: (1) a technology office established on their own campus, (2) summer workshops lasting several days, (3) occasional 1-day intensive workshops, and (4) workshops provided to their own individual departments. They least favor training through formal courses and teleconferences.

The primary barriers faculty perceive (items 91-100) are (1) lack of classrooms that are fit to teach in with technology (an explanation for the trend noted in items 1-30), (2) concerns for inequities of access to technology among students as courses increasingly assume student access to computers and (3) lack of time to learn new technology. Less than 1% of respondents noted fear of technology as an agent that could lower student evaluations as a serious barrier, thus relegating this "barrier" to the status of a non-issue. Overall, faculty interest is high in learning the opportunities provided by newer technologies. The survey revealed what faculty now use, what they aspire to use, what outcomes they wish to have occur, how they want to be trained, and what barriers prevent them from meeting their aspirations. These results allow us to use the 1196 grant money to address the concerns that faculty have defined, and it is likely to be money very well spent.