I was surprised to read that the Education Minister Mike Bernier stated the reason for getting rid of most provincial exams is because the emphasis on memorizing subject content is at odds with the new curriculum.
He suggests not only is memorization inherently bad (which is questionable, in an age where students’ memory is steadily eroding, and the fact it’s a vital learning tool) but writing exams is primarily about learning “low level facts.”
This is a common misconception, and a caricature of valid exams, though poor exams are done this way.
Is the minister suggesting that has been the nature of British Columbia provincial exams? Why then did the very same ministry install Grade 10 exams about a decade ago, if it knew this to be the case — at considerable cost to the public?
As a physics teacher with 25 years’ experience here and abroad, I can assure the minister he is mistaken.
He’s not aware that science exams have always exhibited three cognitive levels: knowledge (facts), understanding and higher ability.
Colleagues at university would probably disagree their exams are about “memorization.”
Why would they insist on MCAT (Medical College Admission Test, a standardized, multiple-choice exam)?
The validity of exams is based upon the need to show learning over the entire course, prepare for university, and as a common standard for schools and districts across B.C. They are abused for school and teacher ranking but abuse should not abrogate right use.
Having experienced three new curriculum (average one in 10 years), the last in science barely eight years ago (dollar cost to the public for textbooks, professional development days, etc.), one wonders why another major overhaul is again being forced upon teachers — for the same reasons, under the guise better and deeper learning will result.
Were the previous ones all failures? No, rather educational ideologies and agendas are always changing. Some aspects are useful (focus on indigenous learning/creative thinking), more teacher-centred assessment, yet at cost of losing a common standard.
How well the new curriculum will serve B.C. students and parents depends on how well we compare in the next Programme for International Student Assessment study, run independently by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada and B.C. rank quite high (top 15), raising the question, “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”
Adjustments are helpful, but a major overhaul in a short time period on several levels (content, assessment, reporting system) creates stress and confusion for teachers, whose validity only the next PISA study will substantiate.
Roland M. Schulz
Roland M. Schulz is a science education researcher, science teacher educator and certified secondary science teacher in the North Vancouver school district. He holds a PhD in curriculum theory from Simon Fraser University.
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
