Society moves faster than ever before. Information must be at the fingertips with a smartphone and google. Restaurants better serve food in the fastest way possible or suffer the wrath of online reviews. Technology continually evolves to serve our needs and make life easier. Email, smartphones, Alexa, and even new robot lawn mowers (which I want) can allow everyone to focus time on more important tasks. However, are we using efficiency, convenience, and the pervasiveness of technology as a default instead of using methods that best serve students?
Over the past 2 weeks, the NCBE and LSAC have fully capitulated to the online testing platform. The Legal Skills Prof Blog copied the press release from the LSAC indicating the LSAT will now be 100% online. The NCBE began testing the MPRE online recently, and many of my students were selected for one of the PearsonVue testing centers for the November exam. I understand the benefits of the online test. It is more convenient for the organizations to grade. The scores should be ready and distributed faster. The administration is much easier, and I assume less cheating is possible on the online tests.
The benefits of the online exam do not outweigh the detriment to students. The effort for more ease is primarily a relief on the testing organization. The ease doesn't inherently benefit students. Students are still studying and taking the exam for approximately the same amount of time. The lack of a major benefit to students then means the negatives should dictate no online standardized tests. The biggest problem is the inability to effectively notate on the test. The LSAC and NCBE says that students can highlight passages while reading. Anyone in legal education knows that is a passive reading technique at best. Students every year highlight casebooks in rainbows of colors without actually digesting the information. Physically writing on the question matters the most. When a student spots a possible conflict of interest issue on the MPRE, they should write Con or some shorthand in the test booklet. They can jot down elements of an analysis. Writing requires more than the ability to highlight. On the LSAT, students need to be able to draw boxes or diagrams for the logic games. The inability to write in the test booklet makes active reading more difficult. I assume everyone who helps students prepare for standardized tests encourages active reading. Computer based testing makes active reading more difficult.
Research confirms our intuition. A small study in Norway found reading paper books boosts retention. Retention may not be what students need in a standardized test. I would hypothesize the reason for the increased retention is the more tactile and potentially active nature of reading in paper form. In standardized testing, a few studies found participants scored better when taking the print version of a test, but a few others found similar performance. The problem is those studies were simplistic. When researchers began testing more complicated and nuanced questions, like reconstructing a plot sequence, reading the paper copy was best. This is important because the LSAT and MPRE are more complicated tests. Both of those exams require more nuanced analysis. When more complicated, reading in print is better for students.
Cheap and efficient technology is invading our testing most likely to the detriment of our students. I read studies over the last couple years providing this insight. I didn't have that information ready when typing this blog, so I googled the information, yes I see the irony. Everything I reference was on the first page of the search results. I didn't see any studies promoting unique educational benefits of digital testing. If digital testing's benefits only help the companies and there is a high probability it negatively effects students, why are the exams moving to digital testing? Shouldn't testing decisions be made that are best for assessment and learning for students? My opinion is these decisions are valuing efficiency and cost over student educational interests.
(Steven Foster)
