I’m going to break away from my usual paragraph style and tackle these questions one by one by noting what I loved, hated, and was indifferent to.
How was it?
Interesting. I’ve never taken an exam where the questions were unable to be prepared for through memorization, multiple choice, etc. which completely broke the mold of any test taken in a “traditional manner”. I loved it. Education methods are outdated and simply “parroting” what you heard during lectures serves no real measure as to what you’ve learned.
Was it scary?
Yes, but only to a point. It was more exciting to see what the exams held in store for us rather then fear of the unknown.Likewise, I did hate not being able to “prepare” in a traditional manner, but this is what I hoped for in my college experience; a new and refreshing way to challenge the norms that have become outdated in our education system.
Absolutely. It encouraged free thought and one’s opinion along with the requirement of being able to connect what we’ve learned from the Victorian era to our modern day society.
So different that it freaked me out?
Yes. I was a little freaked out by the fact that we had such liberty to answer the questions in a manner that gave us freedom of expression where there was no right or wrong, but relied entirely upon critical thinking.
Was it a successful experiment?
Yes and no. I say yes because it challenged us to draw a correlation between what we’ve learned and connect it to a modern day thought. I was pretty indifferent to the format that it was presented in, but I do wish (but understand why we didn’t) that we could’ve dug a little deeper into the underlying themes of the readings we did.
Would you like for your final to be set up similarly?
Absolutely. I loved having to think and base our answers on what we’ve learned, but I will say that critical thinking requires time and a time limit can inhibit one’s ability to coherently explain their response.