Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

:
)
‘1‘. ‘.
,---. .’ \
:
i .
‘:t
(
,
:-.- I
P
. _a
-
!
, . . -. __
.
*
. .__
Illinois State (3a) reported a fragmented accountz&lity framework
which is also similar to ours as iiiuslra:ed on px-:i-ious slides
(Slides 2, 3). t
our faculty members do not fear x-countabilit?- In fact, most demand
it. Some argued tenaciously for the right to giw tests of knowledge
and comprehension. saying, “I \\-st;i to ~I>O\V tl\;it the student knows
what 1 taught him. If he fails the < 3i?rs.e later, it Will not be because
I didn’t teach him my subject. ”
This stance \vas understandable. \i’e managed it by sny;ng in effect.
“you may use \vhatex-er instru&icrnzl s:ra:egy you desire. including
i
tests of fa&ual knowledge. But when thy! student is certified in.youl
a.’
area of espertise, he qust ‘be ce:.trfied on a performance test.
I
If
you teach only facts.
1
and so~wone else teache s application of the facts,
the test must be ori the application. He&Its of your in-cIass Informa-
tion or practice tests can be @x-en 20 ih student’s faculty advisor for
consideration if the student’s progress (pppears in doubt. ”
We found one area which might ha\-e
7
more likely a liberal arts compassion for the stl;dents. The instructor
I
en feal- of accountability but was
proposed an examinatior) of se\-eral problems wherein the student could
322