Examinations

In this article the word examinations refers to written tests since that is the form examinations most frequently take. Very few people go through life without undergoing a number of written examinations. Preparing for these and taking them is often demanding and stressful. Not only do exams cast a shadow backward over the whole course to which they are attached, but sometimes they also cast a shadow forward over a person’s whole future. While written tests are no longer as central in intelligence and skills testing as in the past, they remain a standard feature of modern education. Indeed, from a purely numerical point of view, the greater number of people in school today means that more people are subject to examinations than ever before. Given this, it is surprising there is so little Christian reflection upon them.

The Widespread Use of Examinations

For most of human history, people’s understanding of key areas of life, and their capacity to function within them, has been assessed in ways other than written exams. This is especially true of their ability to talk sensibly about various aspects of life or to practice them successfully. This is why Socrates debated so much with his students and why Jesus not only did the same but insisted so strongly on behavior as the ultimate test of understanding. Over the centuries, and particularly in recent times, written examinations largely replaced these forms of evaluation. In the East these were introduced to evaluate those training for administrative office; in the West they multiplied with the growth of public education.

Today written exams take many forms: multiple-choice questions, book reviews, reflective exercises and essays. Some test memory alone, others are open-book, and there are also take-home exams. Many questions about exams surface: What are their alleged value? Whom do they benefit or impede? Why do so many people have difficulty with them?

The Limited Value of Examinations

The value of written tests was once relatively undisputed. Advocates argued that exams showed whether students had understood and learned what they had been taught, could organize and evaluate their responses and displayed evidence of independent thought and quality of argument. The formal and anonymous character of exams was held to prevent favoritism and provide objective evaluation. Exams, it was said, motivated students to learn and offered them a way of judging their progress. Some viewed exams as preparing students for the rigors and pressures of real life. In a system of mass education, often with large classes, exams also offered teachers and judicatories the least exhausting and most practical means of assessing students.

Though reservations about exams go back to the institution of formal schooling, these were broadened and deepened earlier in the twentieth century by liberal educators in the progressive school movement and by new left and countercultural critics in discussions about education in the sixties and seventies. Liberal critics focused largely on the validity of written tests: they were too narrow in scope, competitive in style and impersonal in character. Learning should be more holistic, assignments more cooperative and the bond between teacher and student less judgmental. Educational critics in the sixties and seventies amplified these doubts, criticizing written examinations for their

• dependence on the “banking” approach to education, in which the teacher is the font of all knowledge;

• unsuitability for areas in which knowledge is not easily quantifiable and failure to take sufficient account of the subjective nature of much grading;

• artificiality of the conditions under which knowledge is tested;

• exclusion of such variables as the quality of teaching, predictability of questions, physical state or monthly rhythms of the students;

• inability by a simple grade to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses or help students improve their learning;

• discrimination against persons with different kinds of intelligence;

• tendency to categorize and socially stratify people in too rigid a way;

• contribution to abnormal levels of stress and even suicide for some students.

Meanwhile, doubts about the practical usefulness of written examinations have surfaced as some educators have begun to challenge their ability to predict both further academic potential and future vocational performance.

The Proper Role of Examinations

There is nothing at fault with examining or being examined per se. Words like examine, test and allied terms occur frequently in the Bible. About half of these passages speak of God’s examining us. God tests all creatures (Psalm 11:4-5), groups as well as individuals (Jeremiah 46-51), in a continuous way (Job 7:18) and in heart as well as mind (Psalm 26:2). This testing lasts through our whole lives; compare the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, Jesus and Paul. Central to the way God evaluates people is suffering (Romans 5:3; Hebrews 2:18; 1 Peter 4:12). But some matters will not be judged until the last day, when everything will be revealed and everyone will know if their work has passed the test (1 Cor. 3:4-15).

Most of the remaining passages speak of God’s people corporately examining themselves. Are we holding rightly to the faith (2 Cor. 13:5), displaying a proper attitude to other members of the community (1 Cor. 11:28), serving others faithfully (2 Cor. 8:2) and fulfilling our God-given obligations (Galatians 6:4)? Many passages speak of individuals examining other members of God’s family with respect to their integrity (Joseph of his brothers), moral behavior (Ezra of the Jerusalemites), perseverance in ministry (Paul of his coworkers) and basic allegiance to God (Jeremiah of the people of Judah). Other passages speak of God’s people testing particular persons to see whether they are false apostles (Rev. 2:2), valid prophets (1 Cor. 14:29) or genuine workers (Phil. 2:22). Indeed they are to “test everything” and “hold fast to what is good” (1 Thes. 5:21 NRSV). In a few places God even invites the people to test him (Malachi 3:10)!

Such passages remind us of the broader and deeper, long-term and eternal, examination that we are undergoing as members of God’s covenant people. Though we will be judged by what we say and write, this is basically a life rather than a written exam. This puts schooling-type examinations in proper perspective. It helps us see that any assessment at this level, even within a seminary or Christian college, is secondary. Indeed these passages raise questions about whether educational forms of assessment, especially in such colleges and seminaries, should be broader and deeper than they are and based on far more than written responses under controlled conditions.

The ongoing nature and varied forms of assessment talked about in these passages are also indicative. They suggest that it is better to have a range of ways for evaluating people’s development and performance and to engage in a regular, rather than once only, appraisal. The shift to continuous assessment in schools and universities, whatever inadequacies it might have or stresses it might induce, is a move in the right direction, especially if it contains diverse ways of evaluating performance. There are at least twenty proven ways in which this can be conducted, so there is no excuse for resting assessment purely on written examinations. Where appropriate, a written test can be one option among others, though all forms should primarily seek to improve the students’s capacity to learn, not just judge how much learning has taken place. Testing, of whatever form, should be formative, not just evaluative.

The formative goal of testing raises two wider issues. First, it is important that both learning and assessment of learning take place in groups as a cooperative rather than competitive venture. In this way those who are stronger can help those who are weaker academically, and those who are weaker can sometimes help the academically stronger to develop more than their cognitive skills. Second, it is important to give greater room to learning by doing as well as by memorizing, discussing or researching. While learning by doing has always played some part in education, even in some written forms of assessment, it has rarely been given the place it deserves.

» See also: Christian Education

» See also: Education

» See also: Spiritual Growth

» See also: Stress, Workplace

References and Resources

R. Dore, The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification and Development (London: Allen & Unwin, 1976); B. Hoffman, The Tyranny of Testing (New York: Macmillan, 1962); J. Holt, Why Children Fail (London: Pitman, 1964); J. Kleinig, Philosophical Issues in Education (New York: St. Martin’s, 1982); D. Mechamic, Students Under Stress: A Study of the Social Psychology of Adaptation (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1962); R. Montgomery, A New Examination of Examinations (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).

—Robert Banks