PDA

View Full Version : Google 'should be allowed in examinations'



speedog
04-30-2015, 09:55 AM
Google 'should be allowed in examinations' - interesting idea and worthy of discussion.

Myself, being a guy that went to grade school in the late 60's-early 70's and SAIT 79-81, I've witnessed tremendous technological change - hell, I actually used honest to goodness slide rules before calculators were a thing.

But as technology moves on and information becomes so readily available, do we, as the human race, have to start looking at things differently when it comes to schooling/learning/testing?

This Mark Dawe guy - he's the Chief Executive at Oxford Cambridge and RSA (link (http://www.ocr.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are/executive-team/)) and as such, his views probably carry some merit...



Google 'should be allowed in examinations'

It is inevitable search engines such as Google will be allowed in public examinations, including GCSEs and A-Levels, the head of an exam board says.

OCR chief Mark Dawe told the Today programme allowing internet use in exam rooms reflected the way pupils learned and how they would work in future.

He said students would still need a basis of knowledge and would have limited time to conduct searches.

The Campaign for Real Education condemned the idea as "dumbing down".

Mr Dawe said: "Surely when they learn in the classroom, everyone uses Google if there is a question.

"It is more about understanding what results you're seeing rather than keeping all of that knowledge in your head, because that's not how the modern world works."

He compared the idea to the debate about whether to have books available during a test, saying: "In reality you didn't have too much time [to consult the book] and you had to learn it anyway."

Mr Dawe suggested some exams may allow internet access and others may not.

He told the Today programme: "It's about understanding the tools they have got available and how to utilise them.

"When we are asking a question where we know there's access to the internet, we could ask a different question - it's about the interpretation, the discussion."

On the issue of when internet use might be allowed in exams, Mr Dawe said: "It's very unlikely to happen in the next few weeks or next few months, but it's certainly inevitable, I would suggest."

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: "We have a crisis in standards in this country.

"We are three years behind the Chinese, at the age of 15.

"We have got universities running remedial courses.

"We have got employers saying too many youngsters are unemployable."

He added: "You can have an exam in how to use Google - that's not the same thing as having a history exam or a geography exam.

"We do have to test what children are carrying in their heads".

Quoted from this BBC News article (http://www.bbc.com/news/education-32531820).

Cos
04-30-2015, 10:00 AM
.

rage2
04-30-2015, 10:18 AM
We value candidates that use Google to help solve problems during technical interviews/tests. Why waste time reinventing the wheel? Makes no sense. What's interesting is how many people are absolutely terrible at google skills and can't find what they need to solve a problem.

Disoblige
04-30-2015, 10:31 AM
Why would you want Google to be allowed in tests? Imagine how difficult the questions are going to be, and even then, someone who doesn't know anything about the concept being taught will figure out a way around the system. It's too tempting not to.

It's not hard to get answers when you're in school. The whole idea is understanding what you've learned, and allowing this will just make kids dumber IMO. A lot of kids will just try to figure out the answer without putting in the effort of understanding it. That's what I did when I was in a rush.

jwslam
04-30-2015, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Disoblige
It's not hard to get answers when you're in school
I can't even count the number of times I've googled a question in quotes and got a full on step-by-step solution.

How I feel about this:
On homework, who cares, because I end up getting hit on the exam when I never really understood where the answer came from because it's copied word for word.
On an exam, if they get to blindly copy the solution, that doesn't prove anything. This is why I'm all for open textbook/notes exams. i.e. Does anyone actually need to know how to triple differentiate an equation? What's important is being able to find a solution, understand how to translate that solution to your current problem, and know when your answer is out of whack.

On rage2's comment: precisely what I'm thinking on people who don't know how to google. It's like all the people who google "What to do when I have a cough" and then self diagnose that they have SARS

ercchry
04-30-2015, 11:19 AM
Guess it would depend on the exam, are you just regurgitating materials? Or are you actually solving a problem/critically thinking? I never did understand testing how well you can remember shit... if you cant critically think... then again i've straight up lost half the marks on questions at sait cause i solved them my own way vs the process we were told, still had the right answers, still showed my work... and it wasn't just one instructor either, happened in math and strength of materials :nut:

speedog
04-30-2015, 11:28 AM
Mark Dawe states "It is more about understanding what results you're seeing rather than keeping all of that knowledge in your head, because that's not how the modern world works."

This is BS - one can only understand results if you have some working knowledge or experience of the sought out process/issue in the first place.

I can certainly Google the shit out how to rebuild an engine and could probably write up (plagarize?) a paper on such a process, but by no means does that mean I could actually go do such.

Here's a great analogy - Google Maps will always give me what it thinks is the best route home for my afternoon commute and often it is the best and most efficient route and I can easily understand the results it presents to me including alternatives. But when things get bogged down then Google Maps' offered alternatives are not the best and most efficient route to take - only real world knowledge and experience will find one the faster ways and it is often no where close to what Google Maps says I should be doing.

I realize that time is becoming a more precious commodity as every year passes and technology evolves but time and time again, real world experience and knowledge will often prove to be the real saviours when people find themselves in a bind.

speedog
04-30-2015, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by ercchry
Guess it would depend on the exam, are you just regurgitating materials? Or are you actually solving a problem/critically thinking? I never did understand testing how well you can remember shit... if you cant critically think... then again i've straight up lost half the marks on questions at sait cause i solved them my own way vs the process we were told, still had the right answers, still showed my work... and it wasn't just one instructor either, happened in math and strength of materials :nut:

Ran into exactly this with my daughter in her grade 11 math this year - she was having difficulty solving a problem and I provided a solution that easily worked. The only problem is that the process I used was by no means anywhere close to what she was required to put down on paper as the process she used to get to the required answer - seemed so ridiculous to me that alternative solutions couldn't be accepted.

lilmira
04-30-2015, 11:41 AM
Smart people will use whatever available to get the job done quicker and better. Stupid people will drop the hammer on their toes and push the nails in with their thumbs.

Swank
04-30-2015, 03:00 PM
^
Haha, agreed!

jwslam
04-30-2015, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by speedog
Here's a great analogy - Google Maps will always give me what it thinks is the best route home for my afternoon commute and often it is the best and most efficient route and I can easily understand the results it presents to me including alternatives. But when things get bogged down then Google Maps' offered alternatives are not the best and most efficient route to take - only real world knowledge and experience will find one the faster ways and it is often no where close to what Google Maps says I should be doing.
Not everything in the world is about "faster". I'd rather have someone who knows how to get there in one piece, than some guy who knows that no cops are ever at this playground zone so he can go 70 there to get home faster.

The point is that if I provide you with the proper resource (map), you have to know how to utilize it to produce the desired result (arriving at home safely). Whereas I feel tests now are "you're downtown. this is the address you need to get to. you've studied calgary because you've lived here for the past 8 years. now go"

Manhattan
04-30-2015, 03:49 PM
Students still need to learn all the fundamentals the old fashioned way especially younger kids. At the university level this will likely help exams EVOLVE into problems which involve critical thinking and problem solving. I found open book exams to be a gimmick - if you're looking up every formula, definition, etc DURING the exam you probably don't understand the topic enough to give a decent answer or finish on time.

There's value in deep understanding of a subject without pulling your phone out.

EDIT: Be careful what you wish for - if google is allowed on exams it'll probably be a lot tougher. Instead of get from point A to B it might be go from point A to B while achieving C, D, and avoiding E.

Cos
04-30-2015, 04:35 PM
.

HiTempguy1
04-30-2015, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Disoblige
Why would you want Google to be allowed in tests? Imagine how difficult the questions are going to be, and even then, someone who doesn't know anything about the concept being taught will figure out a way around the system. It's too tempting not to.


So?

Why does an employer care how/where/why/what/anything about your skills as long as it makes them money?

For instance, say I have no idea how to do the brakes on my car, but I am a mechanically inclined individual and I find somebody doing brakes on the exact same car on a video on youtube; am I then "qualified" to do the work?

I say yes. An engineer gets paid more than me (for instance) doing code because he is faster at it. Not better (necessarily), just faster. Hence, he is worth more per hour. Nobody cares HOW he gets it done, just that he does and it is correct. :dunno:

Disoblige
04-30-2015, 05:42 PM
How did I know clicking into this thread again that HiTempguy1 was going to mention engineering.. Haha


Originally posted by HiTempguy1

For instance, say I have no idea how to do the brakes on my car, but I am a mechanically inclined individual and I find somebody doing brakes on the exact same car on a video on youtube; am I then "qualified" to do the work?

If it was your job? No. I know what you're trying to get at, but this was a pretty bad example. If you have no idea how to do brakes, and watched a video on how to do them, no you are not classified as "qualified".

And your coding example, what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that you would be able to do the job as well, just slower? Slower because you're spending all your time Googling this shit? :rofl:



Originally posted by Manhattan
Students still need to learn all the fundamentals the old fashioned way especially younger kids. At the university level this will likely help exams EVOLVE into problems which involve critical thinking and problem solving. I found open book exams to be a gimmick - if you're looking up every formula, definition, etc DURING the exam you probably don't understand the topic enough to give a decent answer or finish on time.

There's value in deep understanding of a subject without pulling your phone out.

EDIT: Be careful what you wish for - if google is allowed on exams it'll probably be a lot tougher. Instead of get from point A to B it might be go from point A to B while achieving C, D, and avoiding E.
Quoting this because I agree with it.

A790
04-30-2015, 06:25 PM
I have no problems with this. At the end of the day, a problem solved is a problem solved. Given how easy it is to reference material, I'd argue that it's more valuable for someone to be able to problem solve and use the materials available vs. memorize formulas/etc.

BrknFngrs
04-30-2015, 06:32 PM
Manhattan nailed it with his post.

Using Google doesn't replace a fundamental understanding of an issue; it basically makes you Arash.

lilmira
04-30-2015, 06:40 PM
I don't think they are talking about elementary level tests and examinations. Obviously a test for spelling or pure knowledge will not work when google is allowed. I remember in university a lot of the tests were opened book in later years. As long as the school or whoever in authority doesn't get lazy and recycle questions from past tests which you can google for answers, I don't see it being a big deal.

sputnik
04-30-2015, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by rage2
We value candidates that use Google to help solve problems during technical interviews/tests. Why waste time reinventing the wheel? Makes no sense. What's interesting is how many people are absolutely terrible at google skills and can't find what they need to solve a problem.

Agreed.

Noting infuriates me more than a colleague who refuses to Google an error message from a log file and instead randomly clicks or modifies configuration files hoping to fix something.

theken
04-30-2015, 10:40 PM
In my opinion, the way we gather information has changed drastically in the last 10 years or so, since i was high school at least, they should be adjusting school to teach people how to be a good person, how to deal with life, and how to adjust to situations that are going to be hard, not memorizing dates and formulas. School testing based on memory needs to be changed, just because somebody can remember something easier that does not make them smarter, it makes their memory better.
Being able to search and get answers for anything in the world from your phone should be enough to change the way we are taught.

Fly Fishin'
05-01-2015, 06:24 AM
I was allowed to use cheat sheets on all my finals in SAIT on the grounds that they are our notes and you would have access to all this info in the office...needless to say I rolled out a 4.0 GPA by the end....but some still failed.

HiTempguy1
05-01-2015, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Disoblige
How did I know clicking into this thread again that HiTempguy1 was going to mention engineering.. Haha


If it was your job? No. I know what you're trying to get at, but this was a pretty bad example. If you have no idea how to do brakes, and watched a video on how to do them, no you are not classified as "qualified".

And your coding example, what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that you would be able to do the job as well, just slower? Slower because you're spending all your time Googling this shit? :rofl:



Quoting this because I agree with it.

I could have said BSc in computer sciences, but that is way too long to type :rofl: Its simply a direct comparison is all that is a relevent example ;)

As for qualified, well, says you. I don't believe you have to be indentured in the trade to be paid to work on cars. It sure helps with your credibility, but to assume someone is incompetent in something because they don't have a piece of paper is a humorous attitude to take (one seen a lot on beyond though). I'm more qualified to work on cars than a lot of jmen out there, but I don't have my ticket :dunno:

You'd be lying if you said you've never googled something work related, but again, #typicalbeyond. But no, thats not what I am really saying. The concept is that with the added knowledge of google, you might be able to produce the same result as someone with that knowledge already. And if you are willing to accept less pay, then why wouldn't a company hire you?

Disoblige
05-01-2015, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by HiTempguy1

As for qualified, well, says you. I don't believe you have to be indentured in the trade to be paid to work on cars. It sure helps with your credibility, but to assume someone is incompetent in something because they don't have a piece of paper is a humorous attitude to take (one seen a lot on beyond though). I'm more qualified to work on cars than a lot of jmen out there, but I don't have my ticket :dunno:
So how is an employer supposed to hire you? Based on? Maybe they'll ask you, "Hey, can you explain the process you would go through when changing brakes?" What are you going to say? "Oh uhh, I never done it before, but I am very mechanically inclined because I can do this, this, and this. But I could easily just Google it and figure it out.".. Yeah, good luck haha.


Originally posted by HiTempguy1

You'd be lying if you said you've never googled something work related, but again, #typicalbeyond. But no, thats not what I am really saying. The concept is that with the added knowledge of google, you might be able to produce the same result as someone with that knowledge already. And if you are willing to accept less pay, then why wouldn't a company hire you?
I use Google for work all the time, but I don't agree with what you said below.


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Not better (necessarily), just faster. Hence, he is worth more per hour. Nobody cares HOW he gets it done, just that he does and it is correct. :dunno:
I would say that most companies do care how it gets done. The work should be done correctly, but also efficiently (time, cost), and more importantly, safe. Without experience and if you're just Googling shit, you might disregard a lot of important aspects of the work that could hinder your efficiency and safety. Again, refer to Manhattan's post.

If we are going to use Engineering as an example, how about the difference from a field engineer vs. engineer in the office with no field experience? Do you think a field engineer with that experience is much more helpful than someone who doesn't have it? The engineer in the office could be very sufficient at Google, but to be honest would still be miles away from the engineer with experience in the field who actually dealt with Operations and Maintenance and on-site projects.

NoPulp
05-01-2015, 08:42 AM
I wouldn't want google in my examination.

Its important for me to actually learn what I'm paying to learn. Exams aren't difficult.... I wouldn't have benifited from Google much. Many of my classes have very little available on the internet such as thermodynamics and vibrations anyways.

It also gives some credibility to yourself if you passed without google. Should the moron trying to be a doctor pass an examination because he can use Google effectively? I'd rather not have that person preform surgery on me...

Mibz
05-01-2015, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by sputnik
Noting infuriates me more than a colleague who refuses to Google an error message from a log file and instead randomly clicks or modifies configuration files hoping to fix something. "Hey guys, a few months ago something broke so I changed 12 settings all at once and fixed it so if I ever see another problem I'm going to change those same 12 settings again".

BavarianBeast
05-01-2015, 10:58 AM
Google wouldn't of helped me very much with most of the exams I wrote in university. Most of the material was very complex and answers couldn't of been found with a google search.

You also wouldn't have enough time to google and find the answers to 100 questions in a 2 hour period if you didn't know any of the material.

A790
05-01-2015, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by NoPulp
Should the moron trying to be a doctor pass an examination because he can use Google effectively? I'd rather not have that person preform surgery on me...
Obviously a layer of common sense would need to apply.

rx7_turbo2
05-01-2015, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Disoblige
I would say that most companies do care how it gets done. The work should be done correctly, but also efficiently (time, cost), and more importantly, safe. Without experience and if you're just Googling shit, you might disregard a lot of important aspects of the work that could hinder your efficiency and safety.

I tend to agree. Google can be a valuable tool. But just a tool, it cannot replace fundamental knowledge. A solid fundamental knowledge of a subject and an ability to use other resources including Google is of great benefit. The ability to use Google without a reasonable understanding of the subject matter can be extremely dangerous.

blitz
05-02-2015, 07:48 PM
I had teachers in school that would allow you to use your textbooks for exams, but they were structured in such a way that if you generally would only get 50% of the exam done if you actually had to rely on looking things up. We actually started preferring his closed book exams because they were significantly shorter and easier.

Same thing could be applied here.

Recca168
05-02-2015, 11:12 PM
In principal allowing google in an exam just makes it an open book exam with an extremely large textbook. It "should" allow a student to find/filter/apply information to solve a problem which demonstrates critical thinking and problem solving skills.

However with the internet the way it is, I think allowing google in an exam in most cases would just promote actual cheating.

rx7_turbo2
05-03-2015, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by blitz
I had teachers in school that would allow you to use your textbooks for exams, but they were structured in such a way that if you generally would only get 50% of the exam done if you actually had to rely on looking things up. We actually started preferring his closed book exams because they were significantly shorter and easier.

Same thing could be applied here.

Open book exams aren't all they're cracked up to be for sure.

At trade school our Code exams and even our TQ exams were open book in terms of access to the Canadian Electrical Code. If you didn't know what you were doing in terms of where to look in the book and how to interpret what you found, you'd have been screwed, despite the fact all the answers were right in front of you.

SOAB
05-04-2015, 11:30 AM
I took a financial math course at SAIT and the instructor told us straight up that there were no marks for assignments and that our mid-term and final would determine our marks. he also stated that they would be open book.

when it came time for the exams, if you didn't do the work and know the math or where to find the equations, you failed. it didn't matter that the exams were open book.

sexualbanana
05-04-2015, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by BavarianBeast
Google wouldn't of helped me very much with most of the exams I wrote in university. Most of the material was very complex and answers couldn't of been found with a google search.

First, I will take the stance of a grammar Nazi and point out that Google also didn't help you learn to distinguish "would of" and "would have". Sorry, it's a major pet peeve of mine to see that.

With that said, allowing students to use google during a test, in my opinion, is going to help the student learn the fundamental principles behind what they're learning.

For example, I remember when the exams for one of my classes were notorious for being ridiculously difficult. Students would bitch and moan that a lot of the material wasn't covered in class or on any example questions. Every time, the Professor would counter with a simple 'yes, it is', and he was right. It wasn't a simple case of 'calculate this from chapter 1' as it is in our example questions, but a combination of 'Calculate this answer using concepts from chapter 7. But using these values from chapter 1.' Which is a structure that only someone who understood the content would see and understand. Where most people got held up in the exam was 'this question involves chapter 7, but I'm given info from chapters 1 and 2. Wtf?'

Is it a pain in the ass? Yes. Does it make the exam a million times harder? It should. But if your goal is to encourage the development of actual knowledge of a subject, it's probably way more effective (but way more laborious) than the simple regurgitation of facts, which then Google makes far too easy.

[GaGe]
05-04-2015, 12:24 PM
No way... if they opened up Google for exams, then Prof would stop using previous exam questions. More work for me haha.

ROBOCOP
05-08-2015, 06:43 PM
I think it should be allowed. More times than not you get these dick head engineering profs on their high horse making you memorize shit that's convoluted and readily available anytime such as trig identities or some other formula. Sure you can waste time deriving it or you memorize it but the moment you forget a small thing in the equation you're looking at getting at most 25% for that now "wrong" answer. I think this would give check and balance to bullshit like that. Of course, in some engineering course, google will NOT help you pass an exam if you actually don't know wtf is going on so I'm not too worried.

flipstah
05-19-2015, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by blitz
I had teachers in school that would allow you to use your textbooks for exams, but they were structured in such a way that if you generally would only get 50% of the exam done if you actually had to rely on looking things up. We actually started preferring his closed book exams because they were significantly shorter and easier.

Same thing could be applied here.

Yup. Open book exams are the worst. Majority of the time is spent flipping pages, looking for answers.

Eff that.

Rat Fink
05-24-2015, 10:55 AM
.

Gman.45
05-25-2015, 07:23 PM
Rat, I used to agree with that 110%. All the way. Recently however...



I started taking some distance learning courses after being put on permanent disability and being bored out of my tree. You can only watch SG-1 save the world so many times before you consider blowing your brains out. So I signed up for Stanford University's AI lab distance learning under Prof Sebastian Thrun. His work has been instrumental in creating self driving cars (read Google insider etc).

Anyhow, he told me personally that he subscribes to what Einstein said, that if you waste neurons memorizing formulas and stuff that you can simply look up with source material to hand, that leaves a lot of brain power left over to work on using said sources, formulas, equations, and whatever. And believe me, some of the math in these courses is brain baking, the early graduate level stuff I'll freely admit to being completely out of my depth, and without help, such as Google, other students, and so on, I'd be completely useless. As it happens, by using such tools, I've contributed (slightly)to some pretty interesting and important new things but more importantly have been able to remain present and watch the magic smarter people have spun, where as back when I first entered tech school/university back in 1991, I would have likely been "failed out" due to poor marks, as not having Google, the net, and so on around to help search out solutions to problems = no or wrong answer on the old paper tests.


Incidentally, I met a student from Iran back in 91 in a Computer Eng course at SAIT. He showed me how he could write 4 lines of formulas and "cheat notes" on each of the 8 sides of a clear bic pen, using another pen with a sharp needle melted into the end, to create a poor mans scribe. I was terrified of getting caught cheating, and never tried it, but I could see him merrily twirling his pen reading away when he would get stuck on test questions. Sort of an analogue version of using Google during tests, isn't it?

jwslam
05-26-2015, 06:59 AM
^ Precisely

There's a big difference between UNDERSTANDING how to solve a problem vs. KNOWING THE SOLUTION to a problem.

For example (probably really bad because I'm nowhere near interested in this shits), is it important to know the precise dates that things happened during WWII, or the understanding of how one event escalated in sequence to the next? Is it important to know the names of the guys or to understand how they guy from which country did what and had what outcome?