Formal testing vs Informal testing

[stone_dragone]

Who on this board conducts testing in a formal manner (i.e. a board of judges, seated at a table, minimum instructor interaction)?

Who tests informally (i.e. more like a hard class, larger amount of instructor interaction)?

Who has done both? Which do you prefer?

Coming up, I always participated in informal testing, similar to a long, hard class where you do all of the material you know up to that point and massive amounts of calisthenics. This morning, I sat on an ATA judging panel for a belt test (which I have done many times before) and, in lulls between events, contemplated the best way for testing.

What do you think?

 

[nathan3]

I prefer the more formal test situation, where my instructor has limited involvement other than telling me what to perform next. I feel like if I can't get it right on the first try in this kind of environment, then I probably don't really know the technique and couldn't perform it on demand "in the street." This is just my preference though, but it is one of the reasons that I picked (and stuck with) my current school.

 

[Kacey]

I also prefer the formal test situation. One, the purpose of testing - at least the way my sahbum explained it to me - is to put students into a deliberately stressful environment, and see if they still know the material. It is, IMHO, much easier to demonstrate mastery in a class setting for your instructor - even a special, harder class - than it is in a formal testing setting for another instructor... and if you can't do perform under that type of stress, what are your chances in a truly stressful, real-life situation, where you don't know what's coming?

Two, having a different person than the instructor give commands (we have a student who is not testing passing on commands for the testing instructor, who is not the students' instructor) is another way to see if people really know what they're doing - hearing a different voice, with different inflections, a different way of speaking, and so on, is another way to check if people have really learned what they need to learn.

Three, testing should, as far as I'm concerned, be somewhat separate from class - so the format should be different, possibly the time and/or location, etc., so that it's not just another class. Just working harder/longer does not make a session a testing to me - it just means that students are working harder/longer - and I don't need a testing to do that.

As an instructor, I am as, if not more so (depends on the rank) concerned about the students' mindsets as I am their physical abilities. Not everyone is going to be able to do a harder/longer workout every time - injuries (one of my students currently has a ruptured disc in his neck, for example) can prevent people from going harder/longer for reasons that have nothing to do with their abilities.

Anybody can sweat and pant and demonstrate knowledge and abilities - but can they do it with their families watching? That's another reason for a formal testing, IMHO. For many people, performing in front of loved ones (who may well be the person(s) being protected in real life) is much harder than strangers - so it needs to be done. Now, I understand that you can have informal testings with family present - I just like this way better.

 

[IWishToLearn]

I've had both coming up through the ranks myself. I prefer the informal tests myself - because rarely during a formal test were any corrections made. Informal tests meant my instructor was correcting me as we went along to make sure I really understood what I was doing.

For my own students, I do all testing privately, myself and invited black belts testing student privately to allow for corrections and critiques to be delivered.

Promotions/Graduations however are public events with all family and friends they want to invite.

 

[stickarts]

We do formal testing.
It makes a memorable day for the student where their family and friends are also in attendance, allows us to see what kind of job we are doing as instructors, and gives students a chance to perform under a bit of pressure. Its a nice ceremony.
Its worked for us over the years.

 

[jks9199]

We use both. At the local level, it's up to individual instructors, and we've done it both ways in my club. Some people have a formal test, with advance notice. Some people have a formal test without advance notice. But we also often promote people following our national tournament, based on their performance there and over the last year.

From first level black on, it's a formal testing by the association's board. It takes place once a year, though they have occasionally retested particular portions of a candidate's test at the next national tournament. For example, if a person met all qualifications, but didn't quite meet the standards for their form -- they might get to retest that at Nationals.

I think there are pros and cons to both methods. From a student point of view -- it's nice having criteria that can be quantitatively measured. I suspect that at least on "promotion" in my case was done to distribute students across competition areas at Nationals, for example, and then "confirmed" following good performance.

But I also like the freedom as an instructor to promote a person as I believe is appropriate, when I think it's appropriate.

I think the formal testing at black belt, with local options below black is a good compromise approach.