A paper discussing the pro's and con's of testing employees cognitive abilities in the workplace.

1. C.S.S.E. Training Practice Group-July 2010 Volume 1, Number 1
1
To Test, or Not to Test, that is The Question
Jeffrey G. Chorney CRSP, (Email:chorney@strathcona.ab.ca), Fleet Services, Strathcona County
Abstract
In today’s society we as safety practitioners have a huge role to play in order to educate
and train our employees. An outcome would be that our workers are better equipped to survive in
an ever changing workforce that has many inherent risks associated with specific jobs or tasks.
This paper will look at a question posed by moderators of the Canadian Society of Safety
Engineers (training practice group) on whether a safety professional should test students. Should
we look to alternative learning methodologies in order to achieve the same outcome?
Duty to Educate Workers
In Canada employers have a general statutory duty to ensure workers are aware of their
duties and obligations to work safely. Workers must comply with provincial Occupational Health
and Safety Acts, Regulations and Codes, or federal regulations respecting OHS made under Part
II of the Canada Labour Code. Employers are further required to inform workers of the existence
of any written health and safety policies. Also, where there is a code of practice that worker’s
receive “appropriate education, instruction or training, with respect to the code so that they are
able to comply with its requirements” (Keith Norman A. 2010).
An employer must ensure that workers are aware of the hazards they may face on the job
and these hazards are communicated to them in writing. Any site specific training required must
be completed as well. To ensure risks are mitigated an employer or safety professional must be
creative and flexible to ensure credible training takes place. The problems that will arise when
one attempts to complete the necessary or mandatory training are time, cost, space, availability
of staffs, shift work, suitable trainers, and resources. One also has to factor into account on
whether the training is forced upon employees as mandatory training, or if workers truly want to
participate in order to further their careers and as a bonus, work safely in the interim.
To Test
Most of us safety professionals or consultants in our schooling life have on occasion
experienced some form of centralised exam. Whether as a form of evaluation, assessment, or
examination, all of us have had to achieve and complete training in order to keep our jobs as well
as succeed in our industry or profession. We have had to re-call information in order to pass an
exam, write a paper, or give a presentation in order to complete a course. How else could an
instructor be sure we have studied, required the appropriate comprehension and knowledge, in
order to pass the course? Should our students conform to the same set of standards or is learning
just about passing the exam. Could we care more about safety on the job or just that our students
attended the course we put on and passed the exam?

2. C.S.S.E. Training Practice Group-July 2010 Volume 1, Number 1
2
In the late 1950’s Benjamin Bloom developed ‘taxonomy of cognitive objectives’ which
he called Blooms Taxonomy. This taxonomy attempts to categorize, and order, a person thinking
skills and objectives when it comes to learning. In the 1990’s a former student of Bloom, Lorin
Anderson, revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and published a revised Taxonomy in 2001.
Ms. Anderson decided to replace the usage of nouns by Mr. Bloom and substitute the use
of verbs. You will quickly notice one important conclusion. In the past, academia used
evaluation (written or verbal examination) in order to determine if a student had achieved the
required knowledge or comprehension. You will notice the graphic on the left depicts the
learning process of a student with evaluation as the last step to complete in order to achieve a
higher order of thinking skill or skills. Is this evaluation reflective, evaluative, or a means of
testing for cognition? The author restates the question. How else can we ensure a student has
retained the appropriate knowledge for him or her to work safely on the job site or in an office
environment?
Not to Test
Ms. Anderson suggests there might be an alternative. Instead of totally relying on
evaluation as an end to a means, create a different approach by utilizing a different set of key
verbs and associate it with the lower order thinking skills (LOTS). The following set of verbs
replaces the nouns used by Bloom.
Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS)
1. Remembering - Recognizing, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming,
locating, finding

3. C.S.S.E. Training Practice Group-July 2010 Volume 1, Number 1
3
2. Understanding - Interpreting, Summarizing, inferring, paraphrasing, classifying,
comparing, explaining, exemplifying
3. Applying - Implementing, carrying out, using, executing
4. Analyzing - Comparing, organizing, deconstructing, Attributing, outlining, finding,
structuring, integrating
5. Evaluating - Checking, hypothesizing, critiquing, Experimenting, judging, testing,
Detecting, Monitoring
6. Creating - designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing, devising, making
You will notice I have highlighted and underlined the word testing in the evaluating skill
set. Notice that evaluating is not the last step in the process. Is the evaluation stage about being
able to evaluate information to form a hypothesis of a learning situation (rote recall and use)
using the concepts learned? Or is this just a way to use the concepts to go beyond retention and
regurgitation.
Ms. Anderson is suggesting that there is more to the learning process than just testing
cognition to complete a learning experience. She is listing creating as; the highest of the higher
order thinking skill (HOTS). What if we as safety professionals, allowed our students to create
their own learning environment? Instead of being the ‘sage on the stage’ we become the guide on
the side’. Our role changes from being a talking head to a facilitator of learning. We give our
students the skills and resources to learn on their own time, place, and at their own pace on the
job. What if we decided to rely on alternative ways to communicate and test knowledge to the
desired outcome we would want to achieve. There are alternative ways to measure re-call and
comprehension without writing a test or quiz. In fact, Professor Dr. Ray Wilks head of
Psychology (International Medical University et al 2010) states that “there is no evidence that
I’m aware of that shows a positive correlation between exams and learning.” Learning, he
believes, should not be about the passing, or not, of exams.
We can just simply observe our students and watch them complete a job task while
coaching them with our wisdom and past knowledge of a subject. We can involve them with case
studies, and then they come up with solutions to mitigate risk to an acceptable level. Job task
analysis can be used as a form of instruction. We might even give our students a guidebook to
read and then ask them to evaluate it and how they would use the knowledge in the shop or field.
Can we measure comprehension by a final grade or what we see as an outcome of a safe work
environment?
Effective Assessment
Most, of us safety practitioners are involved in some form or type of hazard assessment.
We are writing them, reviewing them, and communicating them to our workers. Our role, and
our employee’s role, is to mitigate risk to an acceptable level to ensure the job site is a safe
environment. The same goes for training. We are writing training manuals and then trying to
communicate the knowledge in these manuals to our staff in the form of safe work practices or
procedures. After this we are satisfied that our workers have some basic knowledge of the job or
task. How are we sure our employees got it? Do we test, or do we go by the amount of
incidents/near miss reports we are reviewing during the year? Just because we have a low

4. C.S.S.E. Training Practice Group-July 2010 Volume 1, Number 1
4
incident frequency doesn’t guarantee the job site is safe. We might just be lucky for a while
and… ‘Then it happens, a major incident no one seen coming.’ We need to focus on the
processes like hazard assessment, safe work practices, as well as measuring outcomes. If our
safety process is documented, proven to be safe, hazards are assessed and measured over time,
chances are it works.
We should try to use multiple measures over time. Are we satisfied with our staff sitting
in front of a computer screen and using an on-line training program? Just to make sure we can as
quickly as possible get our workers onto a jobsite. Is a disaster waiting to happen? Yet, what are
most of us doing when we do a slam dunk orientation and then give our students a couple of
quizzes? Are our workers aware of all the hazards? Do we verbally explain the risks and details
of each job, or do we need to test as well for comprehension?
The ultimate goal of any effective teaching philosophy is that our students get some
knowledge and learn to apply it. We have to ensure our worksite is safe. That’s our job. We need
to facilitate learning and set an appropriate level of difficulty. How we accomplish this is a
learned art form. We need to use positive or negative reinforcement when appropriate. We need
to measure whether our students have retained sufficient knowledge by some means. Finally
transference of knowledge must take place in order for a worker to gain knowledge of the risks
involved with the job task. Then we put the appropriate controls in place and hopefully our
workers use them.
A Three Tier System of Learning: Multiple Learning Techniques
Bahaudin G. Mujtaba, (Nova Southeastern University et al 2005) suggests a three tier
system of learning for students where a facilitator utilizes multiple learning techniques. The
author of this paper is suggesting this is a great idea and would add that ‘multiple testing
techniques should be utilized as well.’ We as safety professionals need to possess a testing tool
kit which looks very different from traditional methodologies. Our world has changed. The
internet has revolutionized the way we do business.

5. C.S.S.E. Training Practice Group-July 2010 Volume 1, Number 1
5
We have gone digital whether we like it or not. Most if not all of our students are dialed
into the internet and they can cheat on any exam we give them by simply using their cell phone
or Black Berries. A prime time ABC (American Broadcasting Corporation) segment entitled
“Caught Cheating in School” 2004 revealed 75% of college students admitted that they have
cheated on an exam or term project. So we as professionals need to look hard at how we evaluate
our students. So if our students want to be on the internet then let us endorse it. Let’s use the
technology to our advantage. We can use the following:
• Wikipedia’s – wet paint and wiki spaces
• Classroom blogs – edublogs, classroomblogmeister, blogger
• Collaborative document tools – Google documents, zoho documents, adobe Buzzword
• Social Networks – ning
• Learning managements systems – Moodle, Blackboard, Smart Board, and Web C.T.
• Twitter and Face book
These tools are enablers of collaboration, and therefore enablers of 21st century teaching
and learning. Let us use this methodology and our students can test us. They can ensure we
provide a safe work place by making us safety professionals accountable. They can teach us. If
they tell us what they need to ensure the environment is safe then we have buy-in. We need to
listen to our staff. If our students want to mash, link, reverse-engineer, and crack, validate, or tag,
then let them. We let them use the technology to learn and intern they test themselves by
mitigating risk to an acceptable level by using information to their advantage not ours.
Summary
We can test if we want to. We can observe as well. We could open the top of our student
heads up and dump the information in if we should choose to do so. Does it work though?
Facilitation is an art. We as safety professionals need to become expert facilitators. We need to
get with the times. Technology is expanding exponentially every 6 months. The smart phone you
just bought is obsolete by this Christmas according to our teenagers. The author of this paper
believes we should test. How we go about it is, and has, to change. We need to ensure we
instruct to the four learning styles (active, reflective, theoretical, and practical) and we need to
test to the four learning styles. We need to listen to what our students want to learn. We provide
the format and resources they provide the results by ensuring the workplace is safe. Are you a
‘sage on the stage’ or a guide on the side? You be the judge! To Test, or not to Test, that is the
Question.

6. C.S.S.E. Training Practice Group-July 2010 Volume 1, Number 1
6
References
1. ABC Prime Time, 2004. Caught Cheating in School. Aired on April 29
th
2004. Hosted by
Charlie Gibson.
2. Bloom, B (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. New York, N.Y. David McKay Co.
3. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, 2004. Retrieved on May 13, 2004 from:
www.officeport.com/ edu/blooms.htm,
4. Bolton, M. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A just-in-time approach to learning.
Journal of Management Education, 23, 233-250.
5. Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What
college students learn from group projects. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 60-83.
6. Lang, J., & Dittrich, J. (1982). Information, skill building, and the development of
competence: An educational framework for teaching business policy. Academy of
Management Review, 7, 269-279.
7. Mujtaba, B. and Preziosi, R. (April 2005). Adult Education in Academia: Recruiting and
Retaining Extraordinary Facilitators of learning. ISBN: 0-9767681-2-7. EXPress
Printing and Publishing.
8. Mujtaba, B. and Kennedy, W. K., (March 2005). Facilitating through Collaborative
Reflections to Accommodate Diverse Learning Styles for Long-Term Retention.
Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL) Conference
Proceedings.
9. Mujtaba, B. and Kennedy, J. W. (January 2005). Affective Teaching and Facilitation: Increase
Learning, Enforce Ethical Standards, and Reduce Dishonesty in the College Classroom.
Proceedings of College Teaching and Learning Conference.
10. Shaohua, C, M., & Gnyawali, D, R. (2003). Developing synergistic knowledge in student
groups. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 689-711.
11. Ed Tech 470 http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/EDTEC470/sp09/5/bloomstaxanomy.html
12. To test or not to test, Asia one Education
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100705-225329.html
13. To test or not to test? That is the multiple-choice question
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/education/3043-to-test-or-not-to-test
14. Norman A. Keith, Canadian Health and Safety Law, Canada Law Book, A Division of the
Cartwright Group Ltd. 240 Edward Street, Aurora ON L4G 3S9 www.canadalawbook.ca