I am coming up on my first examination in Introduction to Psychology. I have developed this online study task which is intended to help students prepare for the examination. It makes use of online study questions. Study questions are hardly a novel idea, but I add a twist. I have developed a system in which students are given a target score and getting to this score is figured in as part of the course grade. The twist is that you advance toward this goal when you get questions correct and you lose ground when you are incorrect. It is a little more complicated that this, but for explanation purposes this is close enough. The idea is that if you are well prepared the goal can be achieved fairly quickly. If you are poorly prepared, you will find it difficult to get to the goal. The message is – if you are not prepared you should spend more time studying. The more you know, the faster the pace of advancement toward the goal.
My idea was to offer a way to evaluate and encourage preparation in a way that would allow everyone to earn this portion of their grade if they kept working. Points for spending time in proportion to the amount of time you need to spend. This is essentially an idea that captivated me in the 70s (mastery learning) – offer clear goals and allow students the flexibility necessary to reach the goals.
I now find myself arguing with some students about the trouble they are having. Despite my warnings, some failed to grasp the core idea. I think the problem here is that they end up losing points toward their grade unless they are willing to put in the time required to make progress toward the target score. No competition – just you and the goal score. Evidently a test you can walk away from even with a poor performance creates a different reaction. It is over and there is nothing more you can do. Why is a system that does not shut the door and offers the opportunity to keep trying a problem?