I remember waiting outside of Himes Hall a few years ago, reviewing my poor excuse for note scribblings and thinking to myself then, as I do now, how the University’s policy on computerized testing is a love letter to bureaucracy. If you or someone you know is a bureaucrat, I’m sorry. Recognizing the problem is always the first step.
Symptoms of bureaucratic behavior may include, but are not limited to, depersonalization, feelings of existential complacency, conglomeration and a love for all things over-complicated. If you recognize these symptoms and are enrolled at the University, then there’s a good chance you’re feeling the after-effects of Himes Hall.
I get it — the University is a state school. Its infrastructure is large and its student body is pretty massive, but “state school” should not become synonymous with uncaring. The University doesn’t always have the funds necessary to tailor every student’s experience into something that fits his or her learning ability, speed or testing preference, but the system spits out students ready for the workforce faster than those students can ask, “Wait, what did I learn here?”
But, that’s the purpose of the bureaucracy. If a student gets the grades, then it doesn’t matter what he actually learned in school. To quote the hypothetical freshman who returns home to find parents that aren’t too happy with his grades, “C’s get degrees.”
Hypothetical freshman isn’t entirely wrong. The University’s plus-minus system has made it a bit more difficult for someone like him to squeeze by without having to learn anything. Computer-based testing is the epitome of rewarding students for memorization rather than engagement.
In 2012, authors Rakefet Ackerman and Tirza Lauterman performed a study on engineering students to document the difference between paper-based reading comprehension and computerized reading comprehension. They found students who read the material on paper tended to do better on the tests. When they asked students to predict their scores before administering the tests, students who read the material on computers tended to overestimate how well they understood the material.
It’s worth noting that this study looked at the effects of studying on computers rather than testing on them, but the findings are fairly indicative of all computer-based readings. If a student is likely to read through computerized test questions faster and without rumination, then it seems that the student is less likely to retain the information covered on the exam.
A study published in 2015 by the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One found no difference in test scores for computer-based exams and paper-based testing, but they also stated that students should familiarize themselves with computer-based testing before taking one of these exams.
Considering that most high schools don’t use computer testing, it falls on the University to prepare incoming students for the unfamiliar testing mode. However, this plan relies on resources the University cannot accumulate without cutting funding to some other essential program.
The fate of the bureaucrat is always to operate within the red tape set by his superiors, so perhaps the University doesn’t need to remove the red tape entirely. Since the study in PLOS One reported similar testing results for computer and paper tests, maybe the University can offer both forms of testing within Himes Hall.
The alternative would mean either giving students only in-class exams, an idealistic fantasy, or familiarizing each incoming student with the testing interface, a program that would cost the University a massive amount of resources. It’s time the University stopped focusing on degrees granted and started focusing on information retention.
Michael Frank is a 22-year-old political science and English senior from New Orleans, Louisiana.
