A poll for the teachers on my lj

[shadowkat]

I'm not a teacher. I've known teachers. And I've had some excellent teachers and some horrid ones. At any rate, the poll below is some questions I've spontaneously come up with late tonight, when I should be asleep...

They were in an odd way prompted by an episode of Everybody Hates Chris that brought back some funky memories. I thought a poll might work better here than a meme.


[Poll #980684]

Comments

[tyreseus.livejournal.com]

Interesting poll. My days of substitute teaching and TA work were primarily in the arts, especially theatre. The types of testing and presentation style varied widely based on the specific goals of the class. When I was teaching an AP English class, I focused on the timed essay (because it was a major part of the test they would ultimately be taking) but was much more interested in seeing their ability to analyze the topic, take a stand, and defend it with evidence rather than their ability to parrot back information from lectures or textbooks. In theatre and choir classes, the tests involved a bit of rote memorization (historical information, necessary vocabulary) but obviously focused much more on basic skills like learning lines, improved performance over time and participation.

But in the end, teaching wasn't really for me. Partly because of the standardized testing and other "required" curricula. Especially in the creative arts. Teachers are forced to give multiple choice tests on vocab because they feel obligated to justify their grades in a way that judging on improved performance and participation doesn't provide. As a student, I'd rather have known that my "A" in Theatre 202: Acting Lab was based on my skill instead of the lame "When actors performs without a script, this is known as a) technique acting, b) method acting, c) improvisation, d) street theatre?" tests.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the response.

Interesting. The theater classes I had in high school were graded on performance and how many reports we did on plays that we read. I think we had one or two short answer tests, but they were rare. No clue what it would have been like in undergrad or graduate.

But from what I've heard regarding teaching, both from teachers and an old college pal who analyzed educational policy and worked for a teacher's union - so much of it is set-up ahead of time, teachers have very little flexibility. I remember my English Prof in high school resented the fact that he had to prepare his students to take the SAT's - so he would insert the vocab stuff in between class readings of Shakespeare, including a tape recording of Richard Burton's performance of MacBeth. He was perhaps the hardest writing teacher I ever had, most of the class hated him - because he didn't give multiple choice tests, instead forced us to write papers and do essay and short answer. I adored him. One of the best teachers I ever had.

When I brought this up to my friend who deals with educational policy - she asked:" But how do you determine who can handle college or has learned something in school? We need some sort of standard or basis to go by? What do you suggest? How do we determin that teachers are doing their job? We need some basis to judge this." In short something "objective" not subjective - that is the same across the board.

A consistent way of determining whether or not someone has learned the material.

I appreciate the need for that, but I keep thinking that's the flaw, the desire to treat everyone the same. As opposed to treating them like individuals with individual needs. Which of course is impossible - one teacher to 50 students? No possible way a teacher can treat each student as individual.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Done!

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I may have liked short answer and multiple choice questions as a student, but in my field, basic Russian, I soon got the feeling that such questions were a waste of time and the students abilities. The students would memorize for the week's test then promptly forget it all studying for the next week's test. So my tests were mostly translations of complete sentences emphasizing the vocabulary of the week and every test I gave was comprehensive as far as the grammar. I did make up short answer questions for the final, but there always was a translation section even then. My advanced students had to write stories or essays at home every couple of weeks as well. I got some complaints about all the work, but I think they learned a lot.

I really didn't understand that I had a disability until I started teaching and had problems writing things on the chalkboard. I really never talked to a teacher long enough to even know there were genuine symptoms of me being different until college. It didn't hold me back much, although I now realize it kept my grades down a little in grade school and high school. I wasn't a Straight-A type student in any case, then so it wasn't a huge penalty.

Regarding the questions on standardized testing, I really despise the current trend toward teaching to pass a specific standardized test. It's restrictive and limits education almost to rote memory. But in the final analysis there should be goals to shoot for, and there are students so bad they need to be weeded out. Our society's fear of failure is ridiculous. Everyone fails at something in their life. Telling kids that failing is the end of everything is cruel and dead wrong. Failing a scholastic test ought to be looked on as an indication that a person's skills need to be developed in other directions, and nothing more

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

I taught more basic skills so some standardization in tests was fine with me. One hundred and fifty spelling tests are a lot easier to grade when they're on computer score sheets. But reading comprehension was short answer, literary theory might be fill-in-the-blank, grammar was either, and essays were always assignments, not tests. Texas is very big on standardized testing, and most teaching seems to be for the tests--curriculum is designed around them. A teacher has no power whatsoever to affect this decision, at least here.

By the time students with learing disabilities got to me they had other problems that needed to be cleared up first, and usually it was almost impossible to solve those. Either the parents were in denial or the kid was or they had gotten so far behind that I could't help them during class very much. Some kids virtually stopped going to school if they had problems, or their behavior was so bad you couldn't attack the underlying problem. I started to learn to send them in for special testing, including counselor visits, but that takes a very long time.

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

Oh, crap. I should've put 'written exam: multiple choice, short answer", etc for the Type of Test Question, rather than "Other"

My tests are based on Lectures & Text, not Discussion.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

So what are your thoughts on standardised tests? They aren’t much used to determine university entrance in the UK except for medicine although there’s been talk of introducing them in the hope that they might be less biased towards white middle class applicants than the current essay/problem based exams. I’m dubious – I suspect it’s as easy to coach people to pass multiple choice tests as any other kind.

I clicked ‘other’ for the question on the definition of dyslexia. As I understand it, most of the features listed can be shown in various combinations by people with dyslexia but the definition is any learning disability that specifically impairs a person’s ability to read relative to other skills. We have one or two students officially diagnosed with dyslexia in most years. They get extra time for exams in a special room, some have been allowed access to word processors. Those I’ve been tutor to have been quite pro-active about various strategies they’ve learnt to work around the ‘disability,’ one woman was significantly better organised than any of my ‘neurotypical’ tutees.

The aspect of my job that I enjoy most is doing the research rather than presenting or publishing it but discussing the ideas is part of that.

Standardized Tests

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So what are your thoughts on standardised tests?

One of my favorite jokes in BTVS occurred at the very beginning of Lover's Walk and to get the joke you almost had to see Angel and the fourth season of Buffy.

At the beginning of the episode - the results on the SAT tests come back, the ones Buffy had been studying for in the previous episode - which are joked about. She barely studies, and basically thinks can we just pick them at random?

Anyhow the two people in the episode that get the highest test scores are well the two people in the series as whole who aren't brain or book smart.
Cordy and Buffy. Our valley gals. Xander who is the only character who goes on to get a paying job, makes money, and runs a business - gets the worste scores, Willow who is a bonified brain, scores are disappointing.

This is actually realistic of SAT's. I am admittedly biased. For a couple of reasons - the tests are given on computer sheets and timed, I would end up invariably filling in the wrong computer circle on the wrong line. To take the test, I had to use the edge of a piece of paper (they don't permit rulers - or didn't when I took them) as ruler to keep track of where I was. Often I found myself having to erase a page and refill in my answers because I unknowingly skipped a line. This took time. As a result my scores were always low - not because I didn't know the information or the answers but because I filled in the wrong lines on the answer sheet.
I've met people who were test brilliantly on these tests, but find analyzing Buffy impossible or couldn't tell you what happened in the Great Gatsby. There are classes - Princeton Review and Kaplan which teach kids how to take the tests. I took Kaplan for the LSAT, which helped a bit.

My take? If you have to take Kaplan or Princeton Review in order to figure out how to take a test - then there is something seriously wrong with the test.

So what to do?

I don't know. When I applied to colleges, the one that I went to did not place a great deal of importance on SAT scores - they were more interested in how you responded to the application - which included two essays on two different topics, as well as extracurricular activities, grades in high school. The biggest weight was placed on the essays. The two I wrote - were : my cultural experience in France with a French family one summer, andan argument that civil war was fought for economic reasons and was not about slavery. I got in. And the tests I took at that college were essay except for two classes - which I did horrid in, because they used the dreaded computer sheets and multiple choice. Also, all the classes were discussion, reports, and had no more than 30 people, most had 15-20 if that. And our finals? Papers, written reports.

So, long story short?

I think standardized tests are for the birds and aren't worth the paper they are written on. When someone tells me that they were a National Merit Scholar and this means they are brilliant. I laugh at them. I don't consider a computerized test a good way of testing someone's knowledge. An essay test? Yes. Again, I'm biased. But if I were Queen, I'd do away with them.