[kfriede]

Would the solution be a shift in the expected outcome of testing to:

A) Project-based testing proving critical thinking rather than memorization, and

B) Testing with the understanding that as long as you can find the answer via Google, notes, or a book in a reasonable time frame, this shows you understand enough to proceed? Is this not how much of the working world works as it is?

[davrosthedalek]

The problem is that you must make sure you actually test the student, and not some other student, or a team. That's even harder for "take home" projects, because the time for exchange is so long.

I try to formulate most of my questions to not be just knowledge. With higher classes, I care less and less about how much they know, or just know how to find it, because the real problem is figuring out what they need to know, so to speak. For lower classes, this is a lot harder, because these classes often teach the basics required. You cannot be a good physicist if you have to google F=ma every time. The same way you can't be a good programmer if you SO-search for -loops.

[zzedd]

I did this in my university teaching with (in my estimation) some success, even with large cohorts (1000+). But it takes a lot of design effort and friction with university administration. One extra element was to incorporate reflection into the project specification, teach students how to write reflectively and to assess it.

[dmurray]

That would be better, but it's harder to set and mark the test. Also it doesn't solve the problem of having a better student take the test or coach you through it.