Why do we do "testing"?

Today, we have Taekwondo testing here in Des Moines this morning. Looking forward to seeing everyone.

Over the years, I've seen a variety of people come into our classes. Every now and then we get one of those people that "just wants to come and learn, they don't want to test for belts or anything." Those people are yet another opportunity to teach a life-lesson.

The questions boils down to: "Why do we have testings?" Call them what you want...promotional exams, "promotion celebrations" whatever little twist you want to put on it, it's the same thing.

"Oh no! We don't judge our students, we simply let them be who they are." BS. Baloney Slices.

Any educator that is worth their salt is constantly evaluating their students' progress. They are constantly evaluating to see if the concept being presented is being comprehended. There is further evaluation to see if the comprehension is being retained, and in the case of cumulative subject matter, being applied to current and future concepts. So no matter what you call it or how you pretty it up, an educator is constantly "testing" their students. If they're not, they are merely a lecturer or presenter or performer. In my opinion, they are not an "instructor".

So what to do with that student that "just wants to work out, doesn't care about testing"?

Well, if has been my experience that there is usually an underlying fear or rationalization in that person's mind for not going through the formal testing process. Either they've had a bad experience (abject failure, public or personal humiliation, etc.) or they struggle with being in front of an audience, or they may struggle with self-esteem issues, or of a number of other "reasons" why they don't want to, don't "need" to, or really never think they "should" test.

Well, here is the Voorheesian Imperial Wisdom on testing:

Everybody tests. All the time. Period.

It's the job of the Instructor to teach, observe, evaluate and then teach some more. It's the job of the Student to show up, learn, demonstrate that learning, so the Instructor knows what to teach and/or re-teach.

But what about....?

My answer is the same: Everybody tests. All the time. Period.

That testing may look slightly different for different people. I have a student who has a health issue that could result in permanent blindness if she took a kick to the head. OK, for that person, the test will be modified so that she doesn't demonstrate full-contact sparring during the test. Will I still assess her abilities to defend herself? Absolutely. I will make those assessments either individually, or in an extremely controlled environment or during class, or observe her coaching/instructing students in sparring skills. Heavens, I've met a man who tested for 6th Dan from a wheelchair. He had been 5th Dan, was trimming some trees, fell, broke his neck, was paralyzed from the neck down. He still went to class, watched, learned, studied, and talked his way through his 6th Dan test.

Everybody tests. All the time. Period.

but why? What are we trying to do with testings? Isn't testing just about the instructor collecting a testing fee, and the student getting a different-colored belt? I mean, it's all about money and ego, right?

In my opinion, if they instructor knows what they're doing, they understand the true purpose of testing. And if the student isn't a "rank-chaser", they will come to understand the true purpose of testing.

Let's talk about that extremely rare, little used part of human anatomy called "the brain". Just to keep it simple (and since I'm a musician, we have to keep it simple) I will use a computer-ish analogy.

Quick aside: Somebody once asked me, "How tough can it be to play trumpet? You've only got 3 buttons to push. It's not like it's brain surgery." I replied, "You're right...it's MUCH more complicated than that."

To keep it simple, think of your brain like your computer. You have short-term memory (processing memory) and you have long-term memory (that 1TB back-up disk you download to once a week -- or should!).

When a new concept or skill is introduced to us, we stick it into our short-term memory. The more times we successfully perform that concept or skill, the more it becomes firmly seated in that short-term memory. As we regularly and continually access that piece of our memory, our brain eventually will download that to our long-term memory. It is stored in a place where we can pull that memory without having to consciously think about it. In a nutshell, this is the difference between "memorizing" and "learning". When something is memorized, it tends to reside mostly in our short-term memory. It's a file that's only accessed when that particular piece of knowledge is needed. But if something is "learned", we can access and apply that knowledge without having to consciously focus on it, and we also have the ability to integrate that knowledge into other components...either new experiences or combining with other experiences to create new insights and applications.

Think about tying your shoes. OK, actually, most of us tie our shoes without thinking about it. We have developed that skill so much that it is almost subconscious, automatic, and largely kinesthetic memory. For many of us, if we stop and actually THINK about tying our shoes, it slows us down. We really want/need that particular activity to reside where it does...at almost that automatic level.

From a physiological standpoint, when we are frightened or a little nervous, our body dumps adrenaline and a host of other "fight or flight" chemicals into our bloodstream. One of the effects of adrenaline is it tends to block short-term memory. We revert to our baseline level of knowledge, actions, instincts and reactions. This is one reason that if you have 5 eye-witnesses to a crime or accident you will frequently have 6 different versions of "what happened". The witnesses don't actually "remember" what happened, they are replaying a tape in their head, their mind fills in the blank spots with what they imagine "should" have happened, and this becomes the memory. When adrenaline hits the system, the only things a person truly has at their disposal are anything that is "autonomic" (i.e., breathing, heartbeat, etc.) and "automatic". Things you can do without having to think about them.

What we are doing at testing is injecting a little "forced adrenaline" into the student's system. When I'm sitting on a testing panel, I want to see if the student has memorized the material, or if they have learned it. By putting a little artificial stress into the environment, I can see how they react to that stress, if they are able to overcome it, and simply perform what they have "learned".

Ours is a cumulative art. If a student cannot adequately perform a proper side kick under a little artificial stress, then they are not ready to be taught advanced applications of that basic technique. Everything is built off the preceding learning. I can't teach a person to read War and Peace if they haven't learned the alphabet. I want to know if they have learned the alphabet and can demonstrate that to me under a little stress.

If somebody throws a punch at me on the street, I need to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am capable of blocking and countering that attack. Being tested on that skill and capability gives both my instructor and (more importantly) me the assurance that I have that capability firmly in-hand, should that situation ever arise. Not memorized, but learned.

That's why we test. It's an assessment of whether or not something is "learned" and internalized, or merely "memorized".

My two cents worth today.