As Chris was discussing the benefits and challenges of implementing a problem based curriculum, like they have at SLA, he said something along these lines: if you have a test at the end of a unit, you don't have a problem based curriculum. You have a test based curriculum. Well. That makes sense.
But, as it turns out, resisting the impulse to test is quite difficult. First off, there are some reasons to give tests. For example, on a test, students can demonstrate their knowledge. Tests can also hold students responsible for information and reward those who have been diligent about doing the work. I am sure there are other reasons as well; however, my intention here is not to support tests. Instead, I want to reflect on why I am struggling with giving them.
Here are three reasons: 1) I'm not convinced that a test truly shows what a student thinks about whatever it is she is being tested on. It is the definition of top-down assessment. 2) Tests standardize learning, which is messy by its very nature. 3) Tests do not strike me as authentic learning experiences. What do I consider learning?
This is learning
And this
And this
Each of these examples illustrate meaningful, hands-on experiences. By looking at the work and talking to students about the experience, I know these activities required planning, focus, attention to detail, trial and error, flexibility and risk. These are skills that we know students (and all of us) need.
So, why can't I just embrace this approach and think no more about tests? I guess a big reason is that tests still reign supreme. As much as I hate to say it, I feel pressure (albeit from within) to conform. I feel (again, with no real evidence) like other teachers would regard with suspicion my choice not to test. I feel like I might even be doing my students a disservice by not testing, since most of them are going on to college, where they will face some big tests.
Thanks Chris Lehman. You have me thinking. Then again, it would be so much easier not to.
Hey Mr. Glass. It's Jex. I was thinking about this problem you were facing last night and I thought I should share my opinion. I have taken a wide range of classes. I've taken APs, honors, and regular classes as well as a wide ranging electives such as ceramics and debate. What I've learned from these classes is that tests are useful and necessary in some of these classes. For example, Nash talked about history classes and how everything we learn is purely memory based. Although I agree with his statement, I think that memorizing those events is the point of that class. We learn history so it doesn't repeat again. The only way we can make sure it doesn't happen again is to know about everything that happened. Therefore the only way to really make sure we learn history is to test us. However I would argue this class doesn't have the same purpose. I think one of the best things about this class is how abstract it is. There is no textbook or specific curriculum we are learning. We are not preparing for an AP exam like last year. Instead we learn and discuss about different situations and crisis like the creativity crisis and philosophies. As a student, I don't think I would benefit from taking a test about philosophy. Nor do I think that is the purpose of philosophy. I think philosophy should be studied and valued so we can think and see the world in a different and new matter. Adolescence is a imperative time for teenagers and is during this time teenagers try to figure out what is their purpose on this world. What is their identity. Why are they are on this world. While all these questions are important, they have no definite answers. Instead we can create philosophies for these answers and I think that is what philosophy is used for. Therefore I do not think a test on Sophie's World would be beneficial for students as learners in general.
ReplyDelete