Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sarah MK Ko                   The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                  __                              Th...
Sarah MK Ko                     The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                            _1_ May 1st 2011 , Mon...
Sarah MK Ko                    The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                      _2_I. Introduction       The ...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                             _3_juncture. The s...
Sarah MK Ko                       The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                               _4_multiple-choic...
Sarah MK Ko                         The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                             _5_Existing Solut...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                             _6_life-long learn...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                            _7_examination are ...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                             _8_providing a com...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                              _9_Why Should Edu...
Sarah MK Ko                         The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                              _10_3)Reflective...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                    _11_      merit (individual...
Sarah MK Ko                        The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                            _12_4)Public feedba...
Sarah MK Ko                          The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                          _13_date and locati...
Sarah MK Ko                         The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                              _14_VII)Conclusi...
Sarah MK Ko                         The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                              _15_with a view ...
Sarah MK Ko                    The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                    _16_IX)ReferencesAnonymous. (20...
Sarah MK Ko                    The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam                     _17_Moskovitz, Cary. (2011, Ma...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

21st Century: An Interactive Multipurpose Final Exam


Published on

The 21st century exam, as articulated by iHeartTeaching, and presented on March 21st, 2011 at McGill University, will culminate in life-long learning for pupils who are tomorrow's leaders. The interactive and multipurpose exam lives forever.

Managing Director, Sarah MK Ko, who is currently a graduate student at McGill University for Educational leadership, hopes to change the limited functions of the 20th century final exam.

Her website,, provides the many resources:

Students these days are only accustomed to worrying about their final exam scores, as well as, final course grades, and often forget about their answers. There is no need to rekindle their final exam moment many years after a course is taken, or when a degree is finally conferred.

I worry that so much energy and preparation comes at the attempt of the 20th century exam. We have to look for new approaches, in terms of a multipurpose, so that the exam itself brings more incentives, return more value in the investment, while allowing everyone to rekindle in one's solution at hand.

How does it work? The exam questions will be expert-based, so public leaders and specialists are invited to the high school, college, or university and provide a fresh question that will really turn a student's thinking about the entire class discussion into applying it for policy impacts to serve the community.

The exam will be more enticing with the presence of an outside expert and the problem-based feature will

The interactivity with it continues as students will see their final exam questions and individual answers (in the form of essays, proofs, etc) which can later be uploaded on the Web. A web forum that is part of a high school or university can also provide user-generated privileges, so that everyone can be involved and present feedback at any point in the future. Editorial content towards policy-making and news coverages on pubic sentiment, etc, can integrate the honest and innovative answers supplied by young minds.

This way, the students are motivated to write the final exam which is truly multipurpose and interactive, problem-solving- and expert-based.

The shared working paper is derived from the original document submitted on March 25th, 2011, titled, "The Interactive Multipurpose Final Exam: A 21st Century Expert-based Solution," at McGill University.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "21st Century: An Interactive Multipurpose Final Exam"

  1. 1. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam __ The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam Sarah Ko* McGill University***Sarah is a global educator and Managing Director of iHeartTeaching . She is a Graduate student atMcGill University for Educational Leadership. The working paper is derived from a final essaysubmission towards a course on Leadership Theory and Education. Sarah is a licensed teacher.**Prepared for Michael G. Doxtater, PhD, a professor in Organizational Learning, Integrated Studies inEducation, Suite 331, Education Building, McGill University. The author wishes to thank Michael for thebrilliant opportunities he had provided throughout the seminars. The stellar bonhomie withintelligence from the live peer presentations and on-site expert feedback had inspired the 21 stCentury Final Examination concept and its treatment towards promoting educational leadership.
  2. 2. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _1_ May 1st 2011 , Montreal, Quebec, Canada. iHeartTeaching, LP. Final draft submitted to McGill University, April 25th, 2011. I dedicate this proposal to my parentsContents at a Glance:I. Introduction 2II. The Conventional Final Exam 2 What is the problem 3 Existing Solutions 5III. Proposed Solution 6 What Questions Will be Suitable? 8IV. The Purpose of the Expert-based Final Exam 8 Why Should Educators Use the Expert-Based Final Exam? 9 A)The Pedagogy Behind the Use of the Expert Final Exam 9 1)Constructivist Learning 9 2)Experiential Learning 9 3)Reflective Learning 10 4)Successful Intelligence 10 5)Problem-Based Learning 10 B)The Motivation: Revisited 10V) Applications 11 1)Sample Expert Question 11 2)Final Examination is Taken: How to Grade 11 3)The Final Exam lives forever... 11 4)Public feedback to Expert Final Exams 12VI) Measuring Policy Impact and Improved Learning 13VII) Conclusion: On Leadership 14VIII) Extensions: Students are the experts 14 Part 1: Ministry Guidelines and the Educational Reform 14 Part 2: Using Technology as Part of the Learning Process 15 Part 3: iHeartTeaching Resources 15IX) References 16About the FounderSarah MK Ko is passionate about discovering ways to promote children, youth, university and graduatestudents to become leaders of today and better leaders of tomorrow. Her current research focuses on teachereducation at McGill University’s Teachers College regarding the experience of pre-service teachers teachingthe new Ethics and Religious Culture Program, among other nuanced topics, such as, school improvement(both domestic and foreign), and technological integration in the classroom.
  3. 3. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _2_I. Introduction The objective of this proposal is to articulate the need for introducing an expert-based finalexamination that concocts to display student-centered approaches derived from the constructivist,experiential and reflective learning methods which integrate leadership. Experts from outside theschool premises will be able to foster a sense of leadership attached to responsibility for the finalexamination participants in a manner that promotes creativity in students, while taking intoconsideration of how immersed students are with technology through the mobile devices and socialmedia trends. The final examination, or final exam for short, is normally taken at the end of theacademic semester, term or year at the high school, college, or any university level course. Our proposed final exam is interactive with a multipurpose application, while maintaining thestrongest regard for regulations which govern it—along with rules against cheating. Final exams can beposted to the online community for various feedback. For the pupil undergoing this novel route, theywill be able to appreciate the experts emic account, via question(s), while their expansion by eticapproaches to provide a synthesis of the class achievement along finer expectations, within the timeconstraints and the added pressure. The proposal is organized as follows: there is a discourse on the conventional examination, itsshortcomings as we present a new modus operandi (operational model) for a final exam design, andrelay the advantages through the different leadership-enhancing approaches coupled with learningincentives, as we later posit on its motivation, applicability, and transition into a hypotheticalapplication and final exam design, while its promising benefits bode well with MELSs professionalcompetencies, as we also conclude with an extension into the technological merits of it.II. The Conventional Final Exam The conventional final exam tests students through a series of thought processes with a standardlibrary of correct or plausible solutions, which are expected to be fulfilled progressively at the final
  4. 4. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _3_juncture. The structure of the final exam serves to present an individual students scope of the course,while she or he presents the answers in a thesis or a logical proof, or arranged as an expositorystatement, as well as, in an argumentative or in a formulaic manner. So, it is at the final juncture of thefinal exam, where the student can demonstrate their achievements and mastery of their learning. Whilethe conventional final exam is similar in its questions raised from the preceding years, given that thecourse is moderated by the same head instructor, or arranged to test core competencies, the structure ismore-or-less the same, as this allows students to prepare well for it. Little known research is present toprovide views of whether how best the performance scores on a final exam should be reflected on thefinal grade for the entire course. Such questions, however, shape the students view and subsequentorientation for their treatment of learning over the course, as to how they will cope on the final exam.Does the final exam itself produce the unique identity of the course, or is it the other way around? Itcan be taken for granted that the final exam which is a method to quantify a students merits to beranked against others, is passive and protective, albeit there is an utmost care with school regulations.What is the problem? The problem with the conventional form of a final exam is that students are not asked to applywhat they have learned to a real-life situation that is largely connected to a career 1. The questions posedin the conventional exam are sometimes disconnected to the actual application in real life, and studentssometimes have a difficult time associating the purpose for learning specific theories or equations whenthey do not see the use for it in their everyday lives. Therefore, the conventional exam lacks a purpose-driven element other than the apparent need to do successfully on the final exam itself. The conventional form of testing relies on students to memorize certain facts, figures anddescriptive information from the textbook and class notes. The grader then subjectively evaluates eachcollected final exam, albeit a strict or rigid marking scheme, unless the style of the exam is entirely1 Oblinger and Verville (1998) express the relationship between critical thinking and what students engender as employees in later business settings.
  5. 5. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _4_multiple-choice based (and students can fill-in the popular scantron cards). As a concession, there is alack of scholarship in the area of final examination approaches, however, there has been favorableresearch dealing with the dynamics of experiential leadership and learning, for example. Our newofficial final exam design hopes to be the remedy to fulfill some of the applicability and challengesasserted by educators in the extant literature2. In some ways, rather, the expert-based final exam is a window for applying experientialleadership within the confines of the final exam, in which case the instructors in charge of each courseor classroom may opt for it, meaning that there will be more than one multipurpose exam for eachdifferent subject. That stated, the final exam qualifies for intelligence (c.f., Sternberg, 1996) whichbridges essential skills upheld at secondary institutions and beyond, to challenge analytical-thinking asone can garner the “analytical, creative, and practical” orientations3. In our tweaked version of the finalexam, the experts administer the level of uncertainty, as well as, the practical ambiguity pertaining tothe course subjects expertise that is reflected in an open-ended final exam question with defined limits,such that the student is not only tested on the course materials, but also may be afforded with theopportunity to deliver tangible solutions for the benefit of the expert who is collaborating with theirhead instructor. Since that uncertainty has been moderated by the expert, everything else that is implied4 by the final exam design does ponder together the realms of discovery, integration and application 5 inone sitting. Lastly, our hope is to promulgate the final exam solutions provided by each student asonline publications, in the form of discussion boards, so that the greater audience may providefeedback and engender a continuity for leadership. There will be a resurgence of interest after thefinals.2 Kajs and McCollum (2009) provide a thorough evaluation of Tolerance for Ambiguity (TFA) in the literature, in their call for assessing leadership potential at schools. Our assessment with the final exam is not exhausted for TFA.3 Reiterating Sternberg (1996), Nancy Huber, University of Arizona (2003) approaches problem-solving skills for grappling with the ambiguity which arises both inside and outside academic institutions. Our approach goes beyond these confines.4 Reiterating Boyer (1990), Nancy Huber does validate Boyers discussion on four distinct pillars and the eventual overlap as one can view it in an applied landscape (or the private sector, in their case).5 Susan Komives (2001), also reiterated by Nancy Huber, advocates experiential knowledge and leadership that are reinforced by reflection. Our final exam does this on-pronto: the assessment hinges on sincere reflection for the students.
  6. 6. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _5_Existing SolutionsCary Moskovitz is the Director of the Thompson Writing Center of Duke University, and serves as anadministrator for the Duke Reader Project which seeks experts to volunteer by reading the studentsfinal projects submitted in the form of papers. 6 Her column, Reader Experts Help Students Bring theWrite Stuff, appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education (2011), as she explained that students inthis project benefit from receiving additional feedback once submitted, on both strengths and weaknessof their essays from these outside experts. This university is making an effort to provide a customizedlearning to graduate students who require constructive criticism from those who exercise insiderknowledge in their respective practice.7 Unlike our online public interface design for the 21st centuryexamination, the Duke final projects simply end with the experts feedback. What is particularly interesting are the real-time comments presented below the online article bythe Chronicles readership. One reader expressed that this program could potentially be used to hire lessprofessors since the expertise and responsibilities are being spread across stakeholders and the globe.Other readers commented on the quality of university education at Duke, on whether this would bringan improvement or deficiency. Although this Duke Reader Project is beneficial to students who needanother perspective other than from the course instructor, one of the comments written by a courseinstructor pointed out that students essentially have to revise their work accordingly to what the courseinstructor recommends over the expert; however, the course instructor assures that there is nodisagreement in terms of what the expert and the course instructor will have suggested. Rather, hestates that it is the art of writing that a student needs to fulfill while capturing multiple views in acoherent manner, so that the endeavor culminates in presenting accurate facts and information to thereader. All in all, our proposed final exam builds on these positive tenets, while the online publicationof the final exam at a later juncture will provide the same opportunities presented by onlineengagement by the greater audience at large, and so that students truly discover the versatility to carry6 A couple of weeks after the author, Sarah Kos presentation at McGill University, a similar programs effectiveness was revealed in the online version of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Source: Moskovitz, Cary. (March 27, 2011). Reader Experts Help Students Bring the Write Stuff.. Retrieved from Help-Students/126904/ on March 27, 2011. The online commentary posted by the readers of the website allows for the public and those involved in the program to respond to the comments in an open and respectful way.7 Duke University Reader Project, compiles feedbacks in both audio and paper versions in the different field of studies:
  7. 7. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _6_life-long learning. Aside from Western philosophies, another author for a Chinese newspaper posited that theChinese educators strictly encourage enlightenment and enrichment of learning to their students bysolely requesting books to be read. 8 He comments that thinking out-of-the-box is rarely asked of thestudents, that after a few attempts at it, his students worry and question why he is not asking thequestions where the answers are simply in the books, since they are so accustomed to the tradition 9. Herather tries to engage them in critical thinking with their minds rather than referring to their books; asinstructional psychology shifts in China, for example, expert visitations at the final exam can retain thelevel of structural consistency such rigid learning environments, too, demand. Our proposed final examcan be a window of opportunity for all educators, namely towards any instance affected by the rigidlearning-environments. Furnham (1994) indicates that the rigid structure is common ground, butideally, the versatility of the final exam affords in it: the flexibility, and dynamic thinking in relation toself-awareness and personal transformation, and to the beneficence symbolic of the interrelations inlifetime learning, leadership and innovation10 (Huber, 2003).III. Proposed Solution The interactive multipurpose exam is a proposed solution that integrates technology and someinteractive parts to essentially promote student autonomy and ownership which are germane inlearning. Our goal is to tilt the administrative strategy so that final examinations can allow room foroutside experts to visit the school premises and provide their expert questions which will be directed tothe exam takers. This way, the student is empowered to deliver insights as an expert and are keen onapplying the foundations of their lessons. The pedagogy behind the interactive multipurpose final8 Anonymous author teaches English at Beijing Foreign Studies University. Books Dont Hold All the Answers. Metro section, China Daily USA, on March 27, 2011.9 DeRoma et al (2003) posit that students exhibit discomfort with ambiguous or uncertain structure of courses and grading itself.10 Lane and Klenke (2004)discusses entrepreneurship and the pathway to innovation for leadership success in education.
  8. 8. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _7_examination are varied and rests on the intentions of the instructor, yet there is a high likelihood thatthis would spur motivation11 to enable students to prepare for it, without defeating the purpose ofoverlooking the entire progress and materials offered throughout the course. Students are inspired toexploit their interpersonal skills, as they become accustomed to project mastery over ambiguity that ispresented within the final exam(s). Effective management would provide tolerance for uncertainties(Taylor, 2000), since the surprise element ineffably comes with the outside expert who promptsstudents with questions which maybe unforeseeable. A couple of questions to support an adaptation for the proposed exam are as follows, since itwill provide an assurance for its productivity once the examination session has been expired: • Do you think that the students will remember the content of information they had spent studying towards, after taking their final exam? • How can we make test questions effective so that students can remember the impact or relevance of the questions? In best practice, it is useful to pose questions which are authentic and relevant to their learningand personal experiences; likewise, as this is how the expert-based Final Exam evolves, the degree ofauthentic leadership to emanate from the program is contingent on whether there will be grounds forthe transformation, and whether open-access to the final exam solutions will trigger furtherproductivity, in regards to how well the memory of the lessons, once the final exam is written, shall berekindled in the future. The eventual sharing of final exam solutions onto the school website can solicita wealth of replies from outsiders, besides the experts who had initiated the questions, and altogether, itis the access from experts visit to the launch of final exams for all to see, is what will drive students tobelieve that they can bring immediate or necessary resolves to various degrees of problems at hand(c.f., Khan, 2010)—and who better to motivate them? The final exam itself induces an exploratoryscope within a framework of an independent test which amounts to open-mindedness, creativity,11 Norr and Crittenden, (1975), develop a study for instructor evaluations compelled by motivational techniques, from class structure, governing collegiate instructions, to balance professionalism.
  9. 9. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _8_providing a comforting sense to grapple with an investigative eye, as well as, with enduring views(Sallot & Lyon, 2003).What questions will be suitable?In another words, how could a teacher or a course instructor make the exam questions relevant to theirlearning whilst asking questions which seeks them to think about their identity and roles in society? The simple answer is to be flexible as possible. The exam questions should be broad, yet to thescope of what the course has covered, experts know what to expect and know what to ask of thestudents. There should be at least one final exam question posed by the expert. The instructor integratestechnology with social media for a private submission of answers directly from the exam booklets or aform, whether on paper or assisted by a computing device. The purpose of the question seeks greaterknowledge which goes further by elucidating textbook information by making it relevant to the currentworld events. There will be a less emphasis on graders whose contributions otherwise dont mattermuch either way, besides the subjective grades awarded by them. There will be rather a greateremphasis on the experts who arrive to produce best practice questions.IV. The Purpose of the Expert-based Final Exam The purpose of the new exam design is to assess the students ability and to integrate textbookinformation, classroom notes, and developments12 within the course through social interactions to broadhuman influences and experiences through current world events. It also allows for flexibility forstudents to show their leadership in curating expert-level arguments.12 Yaffa (2003), a Technion-Israel Institute of Technology thesis, explores the outlooks for interpersonal relations, which can be achieved by styles and perceptions, in regards to the principals development. The research is constrained to Tolerance of Ambiguity, however.
  10. 10. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _9_Why Should Educators Use the Expert-Based Final Exam? Educators should adopt the new design in the classroom during final exams, because it bringsreal and relevant matters to the forefront of the course content whilst expanding students learning ofthe course content applied to real challenges, or upon epiphanies, and vital problems which require aheightened level of conflict resolution, problem solving skills, and strategic thinking, whileincorporating real perspectives. This form of examination entices students to be creative, think out-of-the-box, and learn to apply their answers to a “real” problem in the “real” world. Students will applytheir knowledge of the subject in accordance to the real occurrences pertaining to the public debate orpublic-policy decisions, at hand, or will have anticipated in the near future. This way, the questions onthe exam are profound and applicable outside of the course. The interactivity imposed in the final exam with its later online implications, via collaborationof individual feedback on the web, adds to the positive effects which truly make the public figure orexperts presence a celebrated multipurpose tactic, although this has never been attempted in highereducation systems, let alone at primary learning centers.a)The Pedagogy Behind the Use of the Expert Final Exam:1)Constructivist Learning Constructivist learning theory posits that students are constantly including new knowledge to the alreadyknown knowledge. They are expanding their knowledge all the time!2)Experiential Learning Based on the primary experience, the person reflects and observes what had happened to self and formsan abstract concept that can be later used as new knowledge when confronted with the same or similar situation.This would vindicate leadership styles13 in the process of experiential learning.13 Williams (2006) poses alternatives to Canadian reform, as he suggests different leadership styles. Other methods for conceptualizing decision-making are covered to enhance collaboration, by means of projecting leadership from the helm of the principal in various situations. Nevertheless, schools in New Brunswick can be open to a blueprint which hopes to implement and transform its own schools into professional learning communities (PLCs).
  11. 11. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _10_3)Reflective Learning Reflective learning is when one thinks about the past in a critical manner and can summarize her or hispast into what happened, and what she or he learned, and what she or he can do differently to improve, or avoidthe problem altogether.4)Successful Intelligence Robert Sternberg explains the “Successful Intelligence” approach that consists of analytical, creative andpractical fronts.5)Problem-Based Learning The expert-based final exam is a form of problem-based learning, except that the dynamic layer ofhaving an expert involved in making a question does not attempt to support the test-takers for a biased solution.There is no attempt made to cue a favorite solution by them. The exam officially commits to tapping on whattruly motivates problem-based learning, as described in the following section.B)The Motivation: Revisited Lets revert to the motivation for students preparing for a final exam, amid alternatives: • How will the motivation of each student change once they discovered the new incentives ? • The closed-book and closed-environment remain unchanged, although a public figure or an outside expert can pose questions directly in a manner to students that allows them to instinctively 14 open their dialogue (in which case, one will write individually without sharing). • Students are then motivated to perform their best with a level of comfort, ease, and decorum. Students are inclined to showcase their leadership skills in writing, in hopes that the solutions to the questions are treated as articles towards public debate. • Students perceive themselves as experts. Self-confidence can be elevated to the point of expressing new ideas at the vanguard with common ideological frameworks developed in class . • When students have access to the kinds of questions for which the experts have reserved for themselves and are willing to share, because it is a matter of public interest hinging on societal values, these test-taking students will produce new knowledge. • Students, overall, will turn an otherwise unproductive, but mandatory final exam to harness individual14 Stoycheva, 2003, investigates the milieu for informed risk-taking attributes, utilized in learning environments, which are applied to talent recruitment and the publics understanding.
  12. 12. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _11_ merit (individualization of leadership) and to bring productivity to the shores of academic freedom and to the peaks of applicable public policy-making decisions. The motivation serves well for students if they are empowered to sport an active stance with outside agents.V)Applications Class subject: Global Education Class level: Senior level (4th Year University) Course syllabus: textbooks, readings, midterm exams and a final exam Final exam structure: 3 hours, closed environment, 5 short questions, 2 essays, and an expert question by a public figure1)Sample Expert QuestionThe public figure is Mayor of Montreal City. He asks a question regarding a specific nature of bureaucracy andhow global education can be implemented by school teachers who have attained international experience.2)Final Examination is Taken: How to GradeNext, the professor for the unit and its team of graders will evaluate the final examinations.The professor and graders will first skim through the answers to the expert questions to draw a consensus, whichcan plausibly be based on the quality of thought, depth, breadth and sophisticated expertise matching thesolutions desired. The expert-based final exam is therefore an interactive, multipurpose examination, whichharnesses the spirit of testing at the final stage of learning over the entire curriculum, and as such, itsinstrumental value coincides with the pursuit of leadership as the questions are proctored, and once more whenthe individual expert-based solutions are later posted on the web.3)The Final Exam lives forever...Once the exams are graded and distributed back to the students, their solutions (expert-attempts) are posted tothe website. For each solution that can be collectively grouped together by students, the solutions are now openfor public debate in the form of an online forum. Many students from the same class, yet a different course, and also outside their own campus, school, orinstitution, may very well participate in providing the feedback.
  13. 13. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _12_4)Public feedback to Expert Final ExamsThe best solutions by exam takers will not go unnoticed, as the public provides feedback and commentary asresponses. We can expect the newspaper columnists, corporate executives, policy makers, and governmentofficials to digest these insights and make the appropriate decisions. Youth are empowered to speak (and vote)for the very policies for which they can create! Parents will be supportive, too. The illustration depicted, below,provides the web display and appearance of the official final exam content and its solutions by each student,which have been uploaded to the web. Students can keep their identity anonymous, by being referred by anelectronic alias to tag their solutions, as well as, keep a track of their input into the others expressed solutionanswers. Students partaking in the 21st century, expert-based exam will understand that the final exam dates andthe proctored setting make it not only official, but also formal: the individuals performance on the official exam
  14. 14. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _13_date and location are what becomes officially recorded and graded; its is a formal examination and must beproceeded with regulatory diligence and care. The potential feature of displaying official grades pertaining to theexperts question, with the evaluators official commentary can be an option for promulgating the publicdisclosure of respective solutions by individuals. The administrative body will consider these additional routes.However, a distinction needs to be clarified by the schools and its teachers, so that students understand that thelater (online) publications are unofficial representations and any public support or the very opposite, any signs ofdismay, will not affect their grades.VI)Measuring Policy Impact and Improved LearningStudents will have the opportunity to provide feedback in the course evaluation. The teacher or course instructorcan evaluate the quality of the final exam answers. There is improved learning across ages and online audiencesas the answers will be made available to the public. The public can engage through commenting. A general ruleof respect will be established to protect the dignity of the students to reinforce constructive criticism. Theiranswers can persuade or even convince policymakers to adapt to a certain philosophy, or way of expressing ormeans to implement a positive transformative change. Our assessment with the final exam is not biased to exhaust the student with ambiguity, however, itpresupposes on the notion that there is an enhanced surprise element due to the presence of an expert witnessposing the final exam questions during the event to take place. This enforces a well-rounded character forimproved learning by an early engagement with policies at large. We encourage others to infer on the benefits and costs associated with measuring the policysimpacts. How was the 21st century final exam implemented and what were the difficulties15? Policy impact is inevitable since social media editors of established websites for news servicesare honing the very efficacy arising from user-generated feedback on newsworthy and public foruminitiatives. The online editorial content now demands emerging dialogues, via user-generatedcomments, which are natural properties of both public debate and news. It is plausible to forecastpossibilities, whereby editorial picks16 of such news services, via websites, can feature their top-rankedfinal exam solutions, as well as, any particular comments from the vast public deemed to warrantattention.15 If you are a school teacher or an university professor who has attempted either an expert-based final exam or posted solutions online with user-generated feedback capabilities, or both, then please write to the author:, or submit a form, via, http://www.iHeartTeaching.org16 Social Media Editor of BBC News, Alex Gubbay, explains the propitious nature of integrating user comments into their editorial content:
  15. 15. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _14_VII)Conclusion: On LeadershipThe contributions to the final exam with future information flows, which are inherently substantial fordecision making purposes at the executive and sovereign levels, equate to true empowerment for youth.Youth can serve as leaders while establishing their mastery of the course and providing relevantexpertise to the matters they will be encounter once departing school, or as soon as they employ theirtechniques to the outside world. For the pupil undergoing this novel route, they will be able toappreciate the experts emic account, via question(s), while their expansion by etic approaches toprovide a synthesis of the class achievement along finer expectations, within the time constraints andthe added pressure. The impact of this learning process at hand—due to the vigor of anticipation overthe rigor of the testing environment—will be second-to-none. The presence of the expert can only addto the prestige and reputation the course offering brings to its pupils. The following sections extend our conclusions, as we build bridges towards devising newministry guidelines, to plan ahead coupled by reform, and to better integrate technology, since the latterhas been reserved until now due to its advanced nature, as the transition bodes well with the eighthprofessional competency provided by the MELS17.VIII)Extensions: Students are the ExpertsPart 1: Ministry Guidelines and the Educational Reform This from of examination conforms to most of the twelve professional competencies stipulated from theMinistry of Education in Quebec. This exam corresponds to competencies 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Thefoundational competency one highly corroborates with the need of the teacher to “To act as a professionalinheritor, critic, and interpreter of knowledge or culture when teaching students.” Competency three states: “Todevelop teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and to the subject content17 MELS is an acronym for the Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports; in French, Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport is the authority appointed by the Quebec Province, in Canada, to administer the Ministry of Education and the provinces educational activities and services.
  16. 16. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _15_with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study.” 18 in addition, competency four,“To pilot teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and to the subject contentwith a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study.” Competency five, “To evaluatestudent progress in learning the subject content and mastering the related competencies.” Competency six, “Toplan, organize, and supervise a class in such a way as to promote student’s learning and social development.Competency nine states, “To cooperate with school staff, parents and partners in the community and student inpursuing in educational objectives of the school.”Part 2: Using Technology as Part of the Learning Process The professional competency eight states “To integrate information and communications technologies(ICT) in the preparation and delivery of teaching/learning activities and for instructional management andprofessional development purposes. The benefits of integrating technology is that there is a real-time learningcomponent that supplements the different student-centered pedagogy, ie, constructivist learning, experientiallearning, problem based learning, and reflective learning, behind this exam. In addition, the use of technologythrough social platforms promotes creative meta-cognitive processes and critical thinking beyond the classroomcontext. All in all, students are empowered to take ownership of their personal learning and growth!Part 3: iHeartTeaching Resources iHeartTeaching19 has compiled the authors presentation that was recorded live at McGill University. Themultimedia resources on the web-page provides a stimulating primer and discussion on our proposed 21 st centuryfinal examination. The ensuing third-party journal, news and media coverage will be added for the instructorsconvenience. The END18 MELS (n.d.) “Core Professional Competencies for the Teaching Profession,” retrieved from on Sunday, April, 23rd, 2011.19 The 21st century final exam is introduced along with the presentation and accomodating slideshow delivered on March 21st, 2011, at McGill University, as supervised by Professor Michael Doxtater. The presentation has been rendered into a Vimeo video clip. The deck of powerpoint slides are also available for download. This working paper is also shared online, via SlideShare. Source:
  17. 17. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _16_IX)ReferencesAnonymous. (2011, march 23). Books Dont Hold All the Answers. China Daily USA. Retrieved on March 27, 2011. from M. (2011) BBC News Tries Adding Reader Comments to Stories, But Should it Bother? The Next Web: but-should-it-bother/Boyer, E.L. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bylund, C. L., Brown R.F., Lubrano, et al. (2008). “Training faculty to facilitate communication skills training: development and evaluation of a workshop” in Patient Education and Counseling, 70 (2008) 430-436.Buchen, Irving H. (2005). Training future manager-leaders, Performance Improvement. Volume 44, number 8. pp. 20-22.Cochran-Smith Marilyn (2009), Boston College TNE Evidence Team, Re-culturing Teacher Education: Inquiry, Evidence, and Action, Journal of Teacher Education.DeRoma, V. M., Martin, K. M., & Kessler, M. L. (2003). The relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and need for course structure. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(2), 104-109.Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor analytic study of four tolerance for ambiguity questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(3), 403-410.Gubbay, Alex (March 18, 2011), Comments and Making our Coverage More Social BBC News, Nancy. (2003). An Experiential Leadership Approach for Teaching Tolerance for Ambiguity, Journal of Education for Business. 79(1). September/October: 52-55.Kajs, Lawrence T. and McCollum, Daniel L., (2009). Examining Tolerance for Ambiguity in the Domain of Educational Leadership. Educational Leadership. Volume: 13, Issue: 2, Pages: 1-17Ko, Sarah (2011). An Interactive MultiPurpose Final Examination: A 21st Century Expert-Based Solution. Submitted on April 25th, 2011. Supervisor: Michael G. Doxtater. Department of Education, McGill University. March: Montreal.Ko, Sarah (2011). An Interactive MultiPurpose Final Examination: a presentation . Speech delivered with a slideshow presentation, March 21, 2011. Supervisor: Michael G. Doxtater. Department of Education, McGill University. March: Montreal. Video and power-point deck for slides can be retrieved from:, Shahid Nawaz (2010). “Impact of authentic leaders on organizational performance,” International Journal of Business and Management. Volume 15, no. 12, pp. 167- 172.Komives, S.R. (2001). Learning leadership: As individuals and in communities of practice. Concepts and Connections, 9(3), 11Lane, M. S., & Klenke, K. (2004). The ambiguity tolerance interface: A modified social cognitive model for leading under uncertainty. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 69-81.
  18. 18. Sarah MK Ko The Interactive Multi-Purpose Final Exam _17_Moskovitz, Cary. (2011, March 27). Reader Experts Help Students Bring the Write Stuff. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on March 27, 2011. from Students/126904/Norr, J. L., & Crittenden, K. S. (1975). Evaluating college teaching as leadership. Higher Education, 4(3), 335-350.Oblinger, D.G., & Verville, A., (1998) What business wants from higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Pieterse, A.N., Knippenberg D.V., Schippers M., Stam D. (2010). “Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behaviour: the moderating role of psychological empowerment: in Journal of Organizational Behaviour. Volume 31. pp.609-623.Preston L., Rudolph S. (1995). “Teaching teachers” in The Science Teacher, Volume 62, number 6. pp. 30-33.Sallot, L. M., & Lyon, L. A. (2003). Investigating effects of tolerance-intolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of public relations writing: A quasi-experiment. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 58(3), 251-272.Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & SchusterStoycheva, K. (2003). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities? In: P. Csermely and L. Lederman (Eds.), Science Education: Talent Recruitment and Public Understanding (pp. 31-43), NATO Science Series, vol. V/38. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Taylor, P. A. (2000). Strategies for enhancing student learning by managing ambiguities in clinical settings. Nurse Educator, 25(4), 173-174.Williams, R. B. (2006). Leadership for school reform: Do principal decision-making reflect a collaborative approach? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 53, 1-7.Yaffa, C. (2003). High school principals managerial perceptions and their tolerance of ambiguity . Thesis, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. Source: