Some teachers today still hold a rather peculiar view that essays are subjective and multiple-choice exams are objective. This kind of view (once taken as a sweeping view for both MCQ and essay assessment type) is a result of misalignment of what objectivity and subjectivity are in connection to the method to elicit such results. More so, using multiple-choice exams may be objective but it can also not inspire higher-thinking skills and the same can be said for those who use essays for trivial purposes.
Most
teachers are afraid to conduct essay-type of exams because they do not know how
to construct one that avoids the dangers of trying to rate and pit subjective
answers with each other. (A rubric cannot just address the rating if the nature
of the question or task is too loose.) They think as well that each student is entitled
to their opinion which is also a danger of creating a false sense of pluralism
that does not ground itself with sound reason and facts. Opinions cannot be rated
fairly by default just because it is expressed. More so, essays can be as
objective if the right questions or tasks are placed. Imagine that teachers
relegate essays as subjective, that would be an insult to the legal profession’s
bar exam that uses writing as the main means to answer problems, and arguing for
a case using laws and evidence cannot be objective.
The
tiring thing about essay type of assessment is also draining on the assessor’s
part because one has to sit down and read of which is already time-consuming
when teachers are bombarded with extra tasks that are not relevant to teaching
and, with honorable mention, a horrible class size. I also experienced the dread
of checking essays, but it is through such assessment I can see how students
create opinions and even misinterpret or logically fail to connect points. Students
can memorize trivia, but if they do not know how to use these elements to reason,
then they cannot explain neither can they be creative about something; thus,
such a scenario undermines creative and critical thinking. (Living up to
Aristotle’s notion that “man is a rational animal”.)
Moreover,
since essays are sometimes treated as less reliable due to the inclination to
subjectivity, such can translate as well to the treatment of debate and oratorical
exercises as mere subjective pursuits. It is as if the only thing objective
that a teacher can do is limited to who what where when questions which are all
trivial. And since these are trivial, this does not challenge reasoning, rather
it is a test of memory which is already passe given that we have technology as appendices
to memory; thus, the challenging and relevant thing to do is to have a fully functioning
reason that can master technology and existing knowledge. I find teachers
exercising problematic debate sessions in classes because they do not know how
to mediate given their inclination that the linguistic expression via writing
is subjective. With such, they cannot arbitrate on verbal expressions on their
truth value and that is why they surrender to the notion that all opinions are
valid and to be respected. Such creates a crisis within the education sector as
a supposed breeding ground of academic excellence.
Essays
can be objective if you ask a specific thing with lots of contexts. In my days being
a philosophy student, we were not loosely asked about our opinion on Plato;
rather, we were asked to explain his metaphysics from his point of view and
find the connection to his ethical theory. That, you cannot be subjective to
such because what is asked for is a specific line of thinking. You might say
this is memorization; however, all you need to keep in mind are a few keywords,
once you have them, the next is to think within a given context. Any variation of
the thought and its expression is already points against you because you are
not following the context given. More so, when we were asked to critique a philosopher’s
idea, such can never be in free reign expression because we need to target specific
context and ideas that need scrutiny. We cannot just simply throw away Kant’s
categorical imperative as impossible to do. We have to critique it if it meets
its own criteria of universalizable and necessary actions or if it is truly an
answer to the problem of utilitarian ethics. Thus, answers are deeply anchored
to the context of which, with rubrics, accuracy and argumentation are duly
accounted for.
It
is not only in the realm of philosophy that essays can be objective but also in
other areas that demand reasoning. You cannot just leave the talks on climate
change, abortion, political issues, and etc. as mere subjective when you have
science behind it. Although you can initiate the talk or essay with a loose
question if a certain topic is good or bad; however, the reasoning shown should
have objectivity wherein citations on scientific data and proper inductive and deductive
reasoning are played well. Most teachers are bankrupt with assessing
capabilities that they simply rely on the flamboyance of vocabulary or pretentious
verbiage as the distinguishing factor of a good essay or argument.
Multiple-choice exams can be subjective if it stupidly asks for the best answers with a default single correct answer. I encountered this in education board
exams. When the question openly asks for a best answer wherein all answers are
plausible without a context (and as asserted by the assessor that there is only
one best answer), then such is a stupid conflation of the notion of subjectivity
and objectivity. When all answers are plausible, then all of them are correct.
However, if you are made to choose between plausible answers given a certain
context, then only the answer that responds to the context matters. If I ask
about what could be the possible reason that the Philippines remain a poor country
and ask for the best answer wherein my choices are that a) presence of oligarchy and
unequal wealth distribution b) little to no fewer efforts to industrialize and
open more jobs c) laziness of some Filipino people and d) the presence of
neoliberal policies from foreign powers; then, all answers matter. If the assessor
insists there is only one best answer, now that is bullshit as all answers are
factors to poverty. If the question removes the best answer cue and changed it
to such as “in context to international relations”, “in context to class analysis”,
“in context to psychological disposition” etc. then we can pick out the answer
that is suited for the context. I laugh at the fact that some teachers and
exams employ a rather substandard pretentious and confusing multiple-choice
question that aims to be objective but attempts to invoke critical thinking
without proper appropriation of “correctness”. Furthermore, a multiple-choice exam
dominated by merely asking who what where when is objective but not promising
of critical and creative thinking.
To
top it all off, essays can be objective when the right questions or tasks are placed,
and you have an assessor that is skilled to detect valid and invalid linguistic/thought
constructs. It is guaranteed critical and or creative thinking when essays are not
simply a repeat of what was given but open in eliciting something new or within
the context of something. Thus, opinion-making has to be not out of the blue,
but something grounded on sound reason and evidence. I can invoke, in almost
verbatim, Aristotle’s metaphysics, but I also need to go to the possible
assumptions and even must be able to critique the thought; thus, objectivity is side by
side with creative and critical thinking. Moreover, multiple-choice questions
are not at all objective when absurd questions without contexts are demanding the best answers which are subject to the whims and caprice of the assessor.
Comments
Post a Comment