Showing posts with label exams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exams. Show all posts

"High Stanadards" from John Spencer


These are few thoughts of "high Stanadards" from John Spencer, US blogger.
Often, the proponents of the drill-and-kill testing environment hold up the banner of "high standards" as a rationale for excessive testing. I disagree with this premise entirely. Here are ten reasons most tests lead to lower standards:

Extrinsic Motivation: Kids will work hard to learn, because they are naturally curious. When we replace this with an extrinsic motivation, it moves to economic norms, where they learn to do the least possible work for the highest results. A kid learns that it's okay to do a half-ass job if a D is still passing. Similarly, high achievers are often allowed to skate by complacently with good scores. That kind of mentality isn't present if a student is excited about learning.
Cramming: If I ask a student to learn something today and expect that student to remember tomorrow, a month from now and at the end of the year, the student will probably remember it. However, ask the same student to learn the information for the test on Thursday and it becomes easy to cram and forget.
Time Is Wasted: I visited a campus on Friday, figuring I might see some time-wasters. Maybe a crossword puzzle for good behavior or PAT time. Instead, as I walked through the halls, I saw entire grade levels of students silently taking a test on information that could have been assessed in an ongoing way throughout the week. I've written about this before. My students spend seven weeks (almost a quarter) of the year taking tests. The test is longer than the Bar Exam or the MCATs. It's insane.
Low-Level Thinking: Most tests are multiple choice. These tests, by design, do not assess what a student knows. Instead, they test what a student fails to recognize if he or she isn't guessing correctly. True assessment requires deeper critical thinking and avoids sloppy guesswork.
Slow Feedback: Students should be able to have instant feedback regarding how well they did. However, in an effort to avoid cheating, most students are not allowed to self-grade and reflect upon their learning. It can be a week or two before they get a test back. The best kind of assessment is the type that allows a student to think about his or her learning in order to adjust as a result.
Excuse for Avoiding Formative Assessment: I am shocked when a teacher says, "They did poorly on the pretest and now I'm shocked that they bombed the test." Really? How does that happen that a teacher can't figure out if a student is mastering a standard?
The Bell Curve and Other Deflators: I remember being a student and hoping that the whole class bombed the test, because low scores along around meant the teacher would curve it and I would receive a B instead of a C.
The Wrong Feedback: Tests typically focus on an overall grade rather than the mastery of a standard. Thus, there are two things vying for a student's attention: the grade and the learning. Often a student doesn't get to retake a test or find a different method to demonstrate mastery. Meanwhile, the qualitative, customized feedback is often missing from this type of assessment. And yet, it is this customized feedback that leads to higher standards of learning.
Risk Aversion: Learning involves taking risks. You can't have high standards without a certain level of risk-taking. Most tests are designed to not only discourage failure but encourage a certain fear of failure.
Complacent Teaching: If we say that a multiple-choice test is our only method of testing, we send the message that different learning styles and preferences make no difference. It becomes totally acceptable to move away from the notion of no child being left behind and instead pushing all students into the same myopic view of success. In the process, teachers have the permission to ignore the "lower level" students and focus on those who are "on the bubble." We're watering down our professional standard in the name of higher standards.

Further posts from John

The Real World
Abolishing Homework: Practical Thoughts
Or Maybe We'll Just Jam . . .

20,000 New Zealand teenagers not in education

“There are 20,000 New Zealand teenagers of year 12 or year 13 age not in education or training.”
 “The academy, which requires pupils to attend from 9am till 3pm five days a week, is a way for pupils to pick up NCEA credits while earning a practical tertiary qualification.”
“Wiremu is one of 60 founding pupils from 30 high schools around Wellington at Weltec – and one of 800 around New Zealand. They will be placed in classroom-style groups, through which they will continue with core NCEA credits such as maths and English.”

A couple of point I managed to glean from this article:
  1. I am assuming that the shocking statistic above refers to those teenagers NOT in gainful employ. Otherwise, I guess, we’d all be whooping and cheering for joy. 
  2. I’m wondering if replacing school with ‘school’ is anything like a solution.
Let us consider the evidence from the article:
  • Students will be expected to attend from 9am to 3pm.
  • Students will be expected to attend five days a week.
  • Students will work on NCEA credits.
  • Students will work on Maths and English NCEA.
  • Students will work within classroom-style groups.
Hmmm, sounding suspiciously like school to me.Perhaps it’s the location that’s different. Is ‘class’ in an aircraft hanger? In a mechanics workshop?  Hairdressers salon? Perhaps it’s the tutors that are different? Perhaps they are younger and hipper than the regular high school variety, perhaps they know the funky songs or know the clubbing scene.

Whatever the secret ingredient really is I wish Weltec all the luck in the world.
 

Tolley leads charge for choice and change

Battlelines appear to be drawn in preparation for an election year as Labour declares “Anne Tolley unfit to lead education sector” where as.. “ The New Zealand Young Nationals applaud the leadership of the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley for acknowledging the freedom of one of New Zealand’s top schools to choose an academic pathway in the interests of its students.”

But let’s consider where the nation might be at with this issue. It seems that if parents in particular, but the nation as a whole, is ‘pro-choice’ then the future looks good for National but if voters feel that too much time, energy and expense has gone into NCEA to ‘abandon’ the system then Labour's take on the situation is right.
It is all very well educationalists on both sides of the argument jumping up and down. It is the public perception that is crucial.Is this a nail in the NCEA coffin or an accurate temperature taking of public sentiment? Hence the poll. 
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world's leading questionnaire tool.

NCEA out Cambridge in....

The discussion of whose exam system is better is raising its ugly head again. How are parents to decide? How do they know which is best for their kid and their future. 

My parents talked of one going to tech college and the other off ‘The Grammar’. Are we to return to that? Is that really in the best interests of our children.
Regardless of the discussion on NewstalkZB NCEA still remains relatively unproven compared to the alternatives.  And with Auckland Grammar jumping ship then there is potential for an avalanche of schools. Should there be such an avalanche? So long as the driving force is parental choice I don’t see why not.
TVNZ Poll Cambridge Exams outstrips NCEA 2:1
Again it comes down to the old mantra that Parents need to be active in their child’s education. There is no one who knows their kid better. Parents need to get themselves informed. Work out how their kid learns and then make the best decision possible.
Useful Link: