Nice little puppet...

[Jetgirl]

Why do you believe that standardise tests eliminate the need for analyze?

The amount of time, resources, and psychological labor that it takes to teach someone ways of thinking in which they would be able to come to the correct answers on their own is dwarfed by the ease of innapropriate rote learning.

"Teaching to the test" only teaches you to be good at taking that test.

 

[Maxwell511]

The amount of time, resources, and psychological labor that it takes to teach someone ways of thinking in which they would be able to come to the correct answers on their own is dwarfed by the ease of innapropriate rote learning.

"Teaching to the test" only teaches you to be good at taking that test.

So you are saying that tests cannot ask questions that require analyses?

Plus in most subjects (beyond maths and sciences) what is the "correct" answer?

 

[SallyNow]

because of state and national "standards" that impose tests and rigid requirements so that children are simply taught to regurgitate information rather than how to analyze facts and draw conclusion. Essentially, they are taught to memorize, not to learn.

Exactly what I was going to say!

Teachers must teach the tests; and teaching the tests means giving out answers, rather than teaching kids who to seek answers.

Sadly, the very best teachers often get treated poorly by parents and administration because they do spend so much time teaching kids how to find answers and how to find the key questions in the first place.

The very good teachers, well, they manage to balance both the politics of teaching kids the test, while also spending time on teaching kids how to ask questions and find answers.

The worst enemies of the schools system are test-oriented parents and school administrations that want test results, not life results.

So you are saying that tests cannot ask questions that require analyses?

Plus in most subjects (beyond maths and sciences) what is the "correct" answer?

The "correct" answer is a)something that can be crammed in one night and b) something that go on a multple-choice test.

Tests that require detailed answers are not easily done on a large scale. The time and money that would be required would be quite prohibitive.

Even science has theoretical components to it-components not easily answered on a quickly-marked test.

Even a comprehensive exam for history, for example, requires several essays, analysis of ideas, etc. A one-off evaluation test can not cover what needs to be covered. It's much easier to have multiple-choice questions.

Teaching a governemnt English exam is easy: teachers just teach how to pick out themes, how to pick up on patterns, etc. Yet, English class is so much more than that: looking at society, looking at style, researching themes...there is so much to it!

And there is the real problem that many students just do not do well on tests, and that not all students are capable of getting A's.

A good alternative might be class-based evalution on work done in class, done at a local level.

Because its easier on the teacher. Mindless regurgitation of concepts that were taught to the children is easy to pass off as learning, and substitutes for the real thing. Imagine how much more effort goes into real teaching, and you'll see that in an uncompetative world where there's no incentive to teach the children well, there's no incentive to put in more work than that.

Sorry, but that is just not true. What is easier on a good teacher is interacting with the students; is showing them concepts; is allowing students to research and grow and be creative.

The truly joyous look a teacher has when one of their students has a breakthrough in learning is nearly at the level the parent feels.

However, because so many people have a skewed "it's easy" attitude about teaching, a lot of bad teachers get in to teaching without really caring, because they can teach the test. The bar must be raised on what it takes to be a teacher-it should not be a simple certificate to get, but a hands-on process, along with training in child psychology, learning styles, etc.

If comprehensive evaluations were made-rather than relying on GPA's-the bad teachers would be weeded out, and the better and best teachers would remain. Students would no longer just get facts that they need to be able to bark out on cue, but instead ways of asking questions and finding answers; creativity would flourish.

 

[ravenscape]

Why does it seem that more and more our public education system has become a system of teaching children what to think rather then how to think for themselves?

It's far easier to measure with multiple choice tests.

 

[David Gould]

I am currently teaching my girlfriend's children maths. Judah is 9 and Aishia is 12 next week, and I am teaching them both at the same level - year 7 maths.

I have found that once they know how to do particular problems, they can think their way to the correct answers - I do not have them memorise those answers, and it would be impracticable to try.

However, memorising the multiplication tables, for example, would be a massive help for them - at the moment, they do not have those memorised, and so problems take longer.

As such, learning is a matter of memorisation - you either have to memorise the answer or memorise ways of getting to the answer.

Rote learning helps in certain situations. Some things, you cannot work out on your own very easily. Calculus, for example, needs to be taught from the principles - people cannot be expected to work out the principles; they need to memorise them and memorise how to use them.

 

[Ceris]

Calculus, for example, needs to be taught from the principles - people cannot be expected to work out the principles; they need to memorise them and memorise how to use them.

Then forget them 2 years after they stopped taking math classes.

 

[ravenscape]

Then forget them 2 years after they stopped taking math classes.

20 years later I still wake up in a cold sweat after dreaming about L'Hospital's Rule.

It's not just me is it??

 

[David Gould]

Then forget them 2 years after they stopped taking math classes.

Things need to be used, or they are forgotten, yes. But maths is important because it gives you options. You do not know when you are 10 what you are going to want to be when you are 30. But without the basics in mathematics many options will be denied to you, and it is much harder to learn that stuff as an adult than it is as a kid. And learning maths expands growing minds, making them capable of all sorts of different things.

 

[Nightson]

So you are saying that tests cannot ask questions that require analyses?

Can, but don't.

Plus in most subjects (beyond maths and sciences) what is the "correct" answer?

English has grammer and vocab. History has facts. Foreign languages, ditto english.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Tests that require detailed answers are not easily done on a large scale. The time and money that would be required would be quite prohibitive.

Even science has theoretical components to it-components not easily answered on a quickly-marked test.

Even a comprehensive exam for history, for example, requires several essays, analysis of ideas, etc. A one-off evaluation test can not cover what needs to be covered. It's much easier to have multiple-choice questions.

Teaching a governemnt English exam is easy: teachers just teach how to pick out themes, how to pick up on patterns, etc. Yet, English class is so much more than that: looking at society, looking at style, researching themes...there is so much to it!

Are subjects like English and History REALLY graded on multiple choice? I find that incredible.

We used to have open book exams in History because what they wanted to grade was not your ability to parrot out dates and people and actions, but to draw out conclusion by linking different factors together. That is what History is.

English as well. As soon as I started doing English exams at school it was about writing essays. The exams were all marked by third parties within the exam board so any attempt to teach the same essay would produce 30 near identical essays which would fail all 30 students.

It isn't that difficult to come up with decent examinations or tests.

 

[ScottishJohn]

English has grammer and vocab. History has facts. Foreign languages, ditto english.

Each of these things are only a fraction of the total subject. To grade entirely on these criteria is to teach a fraction of the total subject.

And there are precious few facts in English. So much of teaching English is about teaching grammatic rules so that students know how to break them for effect, and discussing reactions to a written text. Because we understand everything through the lense of our own experience there is no one correct answer about what any particular passage in any book is about. A book that is about one thing and one thing only is a very poor piece of work.

 

[Alarum]

Are subjects like English and History REALLY graded on multiple choice? I find that incredible.

We used to have open book exams in History because what they wanted to grade was not your ability to parrot out dates and people and actions, but to draw out conclusion by linking different factors together. That is what History is.

English as well. As soon as I started doing English exams at school it was about writing essays. The exams were all marked by third parties within the exam board so any attempt to teach the same essay would produce 30 near identical essays which would fail all 30 students.

It isn't that difficult to come up with decent examinations or tests.

So you'd think, yet every year students get multiple choice tested on Literature. Yeah, that's right. Not English, where at least you can have grammar (which is relatively multiple-choice). Literature. Take a multiple choice test on Pride and Prejudice!

Of course it does make the teacher's life easier. No parents yelling at them because their kid wrote an A essay, not a C essay. No explaining to kids how to critically think. Heck, if you taught them that they might start questioning the stupid school policies. What might happen then? Administrators might get on their case! It would just be easier to ask them
"Was Pride and Prejudice written by:
A) Jane Austin / B) Charles Dickens/ C) Wordsworth/D) William Shakespear"

 

[SallyNow]

So you'd think, yet every year students get multiple choice tested on Literature. Yeah, that's right. Not English, where at least you can have grammar (which is relatively multiple-choice). Literature. Take a multiple choice test on Pride and Prejudice!

Of course it does make the teacher's life easier. No parents yelling at them because their kid wrote an A essay, not a C essay. No explaining to kids how to critically think. Heck, if you taught them that they might start questioning the stupid school policies. What might happen then? Administrators might get on their case! It would just be easier to ask them
"Was Pride and Prejudice written by:
A) Jane Austin / B) Charles Dickens/ C) Wordsworth/D) William Shakespear"

Yet good teachers do not do this sort of garbage.

The big problem is these sorts attitudes that look down on teaching as a whole, rather than trying to prevent bad teachers in the first place.

Good teachers will never reduce a complicated subject into multiple choice questions! They'll do a few MC questions to make sure students are listening and read in class, and then also have short answer and essay questions.

But to get more than just the dedicated 50% of teachers doing these comphresive learning outcomes, we need to raise the bar on who is allowed to be a teacher. Knowledge in a wide variety of subjects-the liberal arts, fine arts, or sciences and applied sciences, or both, or specialised studies for teachers who want to teach upper-level courses- and also classes in child development and psychology. That'll weed out the lazy teacheres pretty quickly. And then onsite, comprehensive, training must be done. And yes, salaries do need to be increased, so that someone passionate about teaching-but who knows they could do better financially by becoming an accountant, despite not being the one- will go into teaching.

Stricter guidelines for who could become a teacher-and a focus on diversity, so that men, women, artistic types, linguistic types, scientific types, creative types are all welcome to become teachers-as long as they are also willing to commit to a two or three year post-BA, BFA, or BofS (or equivalant) course of study in child behaviour, development, and psychology.

 

[Alarum]

Yet good teachers do not do this sort of garbage.

The big problem is these sorts attitudes that look down on teaching as a whole, rather than trying to prevent bad teachers in the first place.

Good teachers will never reduce a complicated subject into multiple choice questions! They'll do a few MC questions to make sure students are listening and read in class, and then also have short answer and essay questions.

But to get more than just the dedicated 50% of teachers doing these comphresive learning outcomes, we need to raise the bar on who is allowed to be a teacher. Knowledge in a wide variety of subjects-the liberal arts, fine arts, or sciences and applied sciences, or both, or specialised studies for teachers who want to teach upper-level courses- and also classes in child development and psychology. That'll weed out the lazy teacheres pretty quickly. And then onsite, comprehensive, training must be done. And yes, salaries do need to be increased, so that someone passionate about teaching-but who knows they could do better financially by becoming an accountant, despite not being the one- will go into teaching.

Stricter guidelines for who could become a teacher-and a focus on diversity, so that men, women, artistic types, linguistic types, scientific types, creative types are all welcome to become teachers-as long as they are also willing to commit to a two or three year post-BA, BFA, or BofS (or equivalant) course of study in child behaviour, development, and psychology.

The last thing we need is more alphabet soup keeping good teachers in school longer and giving them less actual time with the kids. The last thing we need is even less reason for people to become teachers. The salary is alright, right now. For a Masters degree? It's horrible. That means even less bright, talented people will be interested in becoming teachers - they'd rather spend their 6-7 years on something that pays relatively well. So even more of the teachers will be people who just didn't want to leave college. Oh, great. We'll get even more of that 5% who just can't cut it in the 'real world.'

Here's a solution: Fire bad teachers. Hire good ones. No protection in jobs for elementry school teachers. Make teaching competative, make the school system competative.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Are subjects like English and History REALLY graded on multiple choice? I find that incredible.

We used to have open book exams in History because what they wanted to grade was not your ability to parrot out dates and people and actions, but to draw out conclusion by linking different factors together. That is what History is.

English as well. As soon as I started doing English exams at school it was about writing essays. The exams were all marked by third parties within the exam board so any attempt to teach the same essay would produce 30 near identical essays which would fail all 30 students.

It isn't that difficult to come up with decent examinations or tests.

We could really use a stiff dose of that sort of wisdom over here!
What's sad also is when that sort of teaching isn't confined to children. I've had a few college professors who made me feel like I was 10 years old. But others really did make me think and I give them props for that. Here's a little slogan I made up a while back (or maybe I'm stealing it from someone...not sure!): "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think."

 

[Jetgirl]

So you are saying that tests cannot ask questions that require analyses?

They most certianly can.

However, I've never seen a required government test that does. Especially in grade and high schools.

 

[Jetgirl]

Yet good teachers do not do this sort of garbage.

Yes they do.

Plenty of good teachers grit their teeth and do this when the school's funding and their job and livelyhood depends on their little monkey's responses to fill-in-the-bubble, "make your mark heavy and dark", government aptitude tests.

Even worse, some of the more sensible ones do it becase they know that being able to regurgitate onto these test forms is what will give their students a chance at a higher education, which will in turn give them a change at a better life.

I have no doubt that it tears their hearts out, but a good teacher these days will do it anyway.

To not do it would be to cripple the child in part. Unfortunate, but there it is.

 

[Jetgirl]

Here's a solution: Fire bad teachers. Hire good ones. No protection in jobs for elementry school teachers. Make teaching competative, make the school system competative.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Alarum again

Darn it.

 

[ScottishJohn]

There seem to be so many solutions put forward for the problems of schools in the US, some see homeschooling as a solution, others see a break with state funding as a solution heading in the direction of private schooling, others want to put more resources into the existing system, and other want to reform the existing system so that it uses the resources it has effectively.

All of these different factions seem to be quite effectively split apart from each other, whereas the forces in favour of the status quo - teachers and unions (at least those who are accused of being against change whether that be because they like an easy life, or ar suspicious of the motives of those calling for change) and those in power who suspect that more money may end up being the solution are quite able to maintain that status quo in the face of the fractured opposition.

All of these factions in my opinion seem to be fighting their own corner without looking at the bigger picture. I can see problems with every position I have outlined (although I accept the list is not exhaustive) yet while the status quo is winning the young people and the country are losing.

 

[Maxwell511]

The "correct" answer is a)something that can be crammed in one night and b) something that go on a multple-choice test.

Tests that require detailed answers are not easily done on a large scale. The time and money that would be required would be quite prohibitive.

Maybe not easyily done but it can be. Each year here we have nationwide tests in a variety of subjects where detailed answers are required.

Even science has theoretical components to it-components not easily answered on a quickly-marked test.

Maybe the examiners should take more time to correct them.

Even a comprehensive exam for history, for example, requires several essays, analysis of ideas, etc. A one-off evaluation test can not cover what needs to be covered.

Why not?

It's much easier to have multiple-choice questions.

Having multiple choice questions for a history examine is pretty pointless, IMO.

Teaching a governemnt English exam is easy: teachers just teach how to pick out themes, how to pick up on patterns, etc. Yet, English class is so much more than that: looking at society, looking at style, researching themes...there is so much to it!

I know there is alot to it. I have seen exams that ask questions relating to style and more importantly the reflection and commentary of the cultural period in with they were written. It is possible.

And there is the real problem that many students just do not do well on tests, and that not all students are capable of getting A's.

Obivously all students can't get A's. The problem in relation to inabilities to do tests in individual tests should be looked at on an individual level and allowances made, such as cases of dyslexia.

A good alternative might be class-based evalution on work done in class, done at a local level.

It could be a good idea.