3 ms·

I think we're moving from single answer knowledge to multi-answer understanding of the matter. This involves being able to absorb large amounts of information,

by tybris 16y ago

I think we're moving from single answer knowledge to multi-answer understanding of the matter. This involves being able to absorb large amounts of information, rather than being able to find obscure information. We probably need more knowledge than ever before, but it has more breadth and less specificity. A historian might be asked to discuss why Spain and Portugal were the first of the European countries to build a colonial empire. You wouldn't directly find that on wikipedia and there is not one single answer that will suffice. To be able to answer it, you need to be aware of the Reconquista, abundant military resources, conquered wealth, etc. and be able to support any claim you make about them. You can search for the details, but you need to have a broad enough knowledge to know what to search for. A mathematician might be asked about the importance of prime numbers in mathematics. Again, not something on wikipedia, Google, or wolfram alpha, or with a single answer.

yequalsx 16y ago
This is the essence of what I was getting at. You've elaborated on what I was getting at. It's somewhat pointless to ask on a test when the U.S. Civil War ended. A much better indication of intelligence and knowledge is to ask why it didn't end sooner. Not too long ago people would spend hundreds of dollars (thousands in today's money) for a set of encyclopedias. Now, with Google, Wolframalpha etc. such a product has no use. The cost to find knowledge has dramatically decreased the past 15 years. Education has not caught up with this reality.
danvet 16y ago
One of the best examples for an exam like this was the final exam in history at my high school. Half of it was a few class-wide topics of 20th century history. The other half was anything of the students choosing, I've chosen the policy of Perestroika of Gorbatschov and the downfall of the Sowjet Union. The exam was simply a text snippet (dunno anymore whether newspaper or something more official) from the time about the reunion of the two Germans, and the assignment was to put it into greater context and connect it with other things that happened at the time, hereby explaining this particular incident. The questions for the general part were of similar spirit. It's been one of the best exams I've ever had. Not just because I've got a straight A, but also because I've actually _learned_ something while writing it: It forced me to think about the knowledge I've already amassed from a different pov for two hours, greatly increasing my understanding of it. I think every exam should be like that: If you haven't learned anything new while writing/having it, it's likely just pointless rendition of stuff learned by heart. And frankly, computers just beat humans at that ;-). Of course, doing this requires good teachers and quite an investment of time from them.

by tybris 16y ago

yequalsx 16y ago

This is the essence of what I was getting at. You've elaborated on what I was getting at. It's somewhat pointless to ask on a test when the U.S. Civil War ended. A much better indication of intelligence and knowledge is to ask why it didn't end sooner. Not too long ago people would spend hundreds of dollars (thousands in today's money) for a set of encyclopedias. Now, with Google, Wolframalpha etc. such a product has no use. The cost to find knowledge has dramatically decreased the past 15 years. Education has not caught up with this reality.

danvet 16y ago

One of the best examples for an exam like this was the final exam in history at my high school. Half of it was a few class-wide topics of 20th century history. The other half was anything of the students choosing, I've chosen the policy of Perestroika of Gorbatschov and the downfall of the Sowjet Union. The exam was simply a text snippet (dunno anymore whether newspaper or something more official) from the time about the reunion of the two Germans, and the assignment was to put it into greater context and connect it with other things that happened at the time, hereby explaining this particular incident. The questions for the general part were of similar spirit. It's been one of the best exams I've ever had. Not just because I've got a straight A, but also because I've actually _learned_ something while writing it: It forced me to think about the knowledge I've already amassed from a different pov for two hours, greatly increasing my understanding of it. I think every exam should be like that: If you haven't learned anything new while writing/having it, it's likely just pointless rendition of stuff learned by heart. And frankly, computers just beat humans at that ;-). Of course, doing this requires good teachers and quite an investment of time from them.