There is no doubt that examinations can dictate and shape the outcome of education more than any other form of learning activity. At the university level, students can learn and obtain information from various resources outside of a classroom. As self-directed learning and innovation/creativity are being emphasised in NUS, the design and quality of the examination (and the concomitant grading system) becomes increasingly important.

In this article, I wish to share how one particular assessment given to Second Year Dental students was conducted in 2000. The test aims to identify the weak/strong areas of students’ learning in the ‘Fluoride’ module and to facilitate a self-directed learning process through the preparation of a take-home examination. In this take-home exam, students get into groups of two. Each group selects a topic from a list and then submits a group report (in electronic form) by the end of the first week after the vacation. There are three parts in the take-home exam as described below:

Part I: Group reflection
(30% of the final grade)

Part I is a closed-book cross-examination exercise for each group member to reflect on what he/she has learnt related to the specific topic chosen by the group and identify areas not mastered/learnt. After an unlimited period of preparation, the group members decide on the date/time/venue to cross-examine each other, taking turns to act as ‘examiner’/‘examinee’. The ‘examiner’ asks one question at a time and is allowed to help the ‘examinee’ only when he/she cannot answer correctly. When both students run out of questions, they outline and compile the knowledge they have each obtained in a ‘we-know’ section. Then, they itemise what each member is ignorant of at that juncture in a ‘do-not-know’ section. All the information is then saved in a ‘part-1.doc’ file.

Part II: Strengthening weak areas and establishing an information bank (30%)

Next, students are allowed to consult books/notes or go to the library to look for the information they lack. They then systemically organise and save the new data in a ‘part-2.doc’ file (which incorporates the ‘part-1.doc’ file). Diagram and/or charts can also be included with respective references attached. This ‘part-2.doc’ file reveals how much and how deep students have learnt during and/or after cross-examining themselves.

Part III: Expanding one’s knowledge base (40%)

After reviewing their notes taken in Part II, students are expected to push beyond their existing knowledge base and raise at least two clinical questions/problems (of a creative nature) that both of them are unable to solve at that juncture. They then look for further information needed to solve these new problems and save their new data in a ‘part-3.doc’ file.
The take-home exam moves away from the traditional one-hour sit-down mode of examination and allows students more freedom to assume ownership of their own learning. Hence, students are graded on their creativity and ability in:

• organising knowledge/ideas in a systematic and clear format;
  
• integrating the learnt information;
  
• selecting quality information;
  
• formulating creative questions; and
  
• self-directed learning/exploring.

I have been greatly encouraged by my three years of working with this special mode of ‘teaching through testing’. The set-up/programme enables students to gain vital skills in teamwork, progressive self-learning, critical and creative thinking, provocative inquiring, and organisation-synthesis-application of knowledge learnt. Although some students have complained that their vacation time has been shortened, other students have expressed joy over the freedom and flexibility that this mode of learning affords. Others have also developed more confidence in critical thinking and reasoning skills essential in diagnosis and treatment planning in clinical situations. With some forethought, planning and modification, I am convinced that this method of ‘teaching through testing’ can also be applied quite successfully in other disciplines.