I was enthused by this themes topic on standards, measurement and testing as this is an area I feel very passionate about have a deep interest in. I was disappointed that some of the readings were not very current but the TED Talk by Ken Robinson was exactly what I was looking for. Robinson argues that we have been educated to be “good workers rather than creative thinkers”. "We are educating people out of their creativity," Robinson says. Robinson outlines 3 principles that allow individuals to flourish and yet these principles can be a rare thing in public education. Principle 1 talks about how people are naturally different and diverse yet it seems to me that we are delivering a one size fits all education. Principle 2 talks about the people being curious and that makes people learn without assistance. This is where the major change is taking place in education a teachers are not to teach but to facilitate learning so students can be curious and curious about different things. When things I was not expecting was Robinson to say that standardized testing was acceptable as long as it did not interfere with learning. Yes we are locked in a constant fight about standardized testing and the benefits and pitfalls but if standardized testing is done right it can be a useful tool to measure outcomes but it should not be used to measure the quality of the teacher or provide the only picture into what a students has learned. Principle 3 says that people are naturally creative but we are so focused on teaching the standards that we do not allow students to be creative. So what this means for classrooms is that me must make education more individualised to the interest and curiosity of the learner. In the article Creative Thinking in the Classroom by Robert Sternberg, Sternberg says there are 3 main aspects for creative thinking, synthesis, analytical and practical. Sternberg argues that most schooling is centered around the analytical and that in order for schools to allow for creative thinking they must find a healthy balance between the three, he refers to it as the “triarchic theory”. Synthetic is where students can generate their own ideas and redefine problems. Analytical allows for judgement of one's own ideas and identification of strengths and weaknesses. Practical is the ability to apply intellectual skills in everyday settings. These three things need to be balanced in order to have true creative thinking in education and can come from things like Project Based Learning. I really believe that the lack of creativity in public education has what has led America to be passed up by other countries in the the areas of science and engineering.
Ted Robinson also has a great TED Talk on killing creativity.
Hi Melissa,
ReplyDeleteSir Ken Robinson certainly provided me with a lot of food for thought. Like you, I did not expect him to show support of standardized testing. In my mind, tests are the weapons that enforce the standardized agenda and are the cause of it going too far. Because of the high stakes of testing, I have seen educators structure their whole curriculum to teach to the exam. This paradigm has caused teachers to overlook students and instead focus on content. Due to the specificity of standards, teachers are merely trying to cram students with knowledge, not inspire growth or a love of learning. Furthermore, teachers are no longer considering what students need, but instead focusing on what they ‘should’ have.
I believe that standardized testing oftentimes gets in the way of a good education. So, I am in constant wonderment of why the nation insists on such a practice? Hoff (1999) reflected on the teachings of Alexis de Tocqueville and argued that testing comes from America’s belief in the “perfectibility of man” (p. 21). Yet, have we found a successful way to perfect man? Sir Ken Robinson took note of Finland’s high performance across the world in spite of the fact that they do not rely heavily on tests. I have read elsewhere that top performing nations in South-East Asia also abstain from relying on testing as much as we do.
It does not seem that testing is the way. Perhaps America simply has an addiction to data and that is why we insist on testing even though higher performing nations do not. What are your thoughts?
Thanks for sharing,
Edward Nelson
I like that you bring up that Robinson saw a place for testing. I find that the real problem like he states is the fact that teachers teach to the standards because of the excessive amount of importance placed on the tests. I think that teachers see the test as a threat. If your students don't do well on the test than you will fail that part of your evaluation and hence not be highly effective or whatever. I often get frustrated with this in the middle school because it is often that I have students that are just pushed through and get to my math classes not ready. Truly to be a good teacher I would go back and teach the gaps so that the student can complete the 7th grade MEAP test, but if I do and I do not show the student the next material they are likely to do worse on the test even though they may have grown so much! Thus, the tests interfere with my students learning. Maybe if the tests were not used for accountability (or a weapon in my eyes) and just for knowledge purposes like originally used it could prove to be more beneficial. Or if the tests were timely so that the information could be used to actually allow the teacher to make decisions with data during the school year then it may help.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am doing this training on Assessment FOR Learning. It is an amazing program that makes testing have a purpose for both the teacher and the student. There is a focus on making tests very clear for students to see based on standards and then having the opportunity to analyze the tests to recognize these are my strengths, these are my weaknesses. This ties into the triarchy that Sternberg speaks of.
I also wrote about the fact that the tests take no time to take external factors into consideration. I find it extremely hard to believe that teachers that work in low socioeconomic areas should be evaluated the same than in an affluent area. My favorite quote from all of the readings is when Hoff stated, “students’ family backgrounds and the socioeconomic makeup of their schools were more meaningful factors in student achievement than the quality of their schools." With knowledge of this, how does it even seem rational to use this as an accountability tool for teachers?
Thanks for sharing,
Andrea
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your thoughts here. I really appreciate the feedback on some of the sources being a little old. I struggled with balancing some of the "classic" pieces that I still find relevant with items that were more current and it is helpful to hear that you'd prefer more current pieces. I'll certainly take that under advisement the next time I teach 818. So, thanks a lot!
A couple of thoughts on your argument… First, I like that you noted the fact that "assessment" or "measurement" of students (or teachers for that matter) don't HAVE to be the way they are. Aren't we all taught that we should constantly be evaluating students' progress through ideas to know if they are understanding or not? Assessment is a huge part of what we do. But, I wonder, how can we do large-scale assessment in a way that is not damaging? Well, I guess the first question is, can we even do it? What alternatives might there be?
Second, I love the focus on creativity and wonder. This current moment in education has done significant damage on this front, as you suggest. I found myself thinking about what might be possible while I read your post. Could we still use the CCSS but also embed creativity and discovery? Could we use the CCSS to help develop Project Based Learning inquiries? How would might we do this?
Best,
amanda