|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
No, they don't study that hard.
Yes, teachers need to find new ways to inspire kids. |
Agree totally with both statements. My private HS had to lower standards on its entrance exam last year just to get kids in. Consequently, they've been fighting with lower and lower grades all year. Duh.
Students outwardly admit that they don't study for our English tests. Not at all!! When they get their tests back, everyone laughs at the scores of 35 to 40. Laughs!!! But, as mentioned, they will graduate.
What do the J teachers at my school do about this? Not much, except plan extra study sessions and longer days. Sigh. It's not quantity of time, it's QUALITY.
| Quote: |
| Standardized testing is so outdated. |
Say what you will, but at least the grades in a standardized test are not adjusted by the school administration so that students meet a quota of 5s, 4s, 3s, 2s, and 1s, thereby allowing kids with abyssmal grades to pass. Standardized testing has its faults, but it provides consistency in scoring as well as unadulteration of the scores. So, you may say that it doesn't test what they are taught, but I say that at least you can compare everyone across the nation. In my school, teachers create new tests each and every time they give them, instead of recycling past tests. That means tons of prep time to write them, as well as to have other people review them before the kids take them. And, teachers will always make tests based on the level of the students (at my school), so what does that say for consistency? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nismo
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 520
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Standardized testing is so outdated. |
Say what you will, but at least the grades in a standardized test are not adjusted by the school administration so that students meet a quota of 5s, 4s, 3s, 2s, and 1s, thereby allowing kids with abyssmal grades to pass. Standardized testing has its faults, but it provides consistency in scoring as well as unadulteration of the scores. So, you may say that it doesn't test what they are taught, but I say that at least you can compare everyone across the nation. In my school, teachers create new tests each and every time they give them, instead of recycling past tests. That means tons of prep time to write them, as well as to have other people review them before the kids take them. And, teachers will always make tests based on the level of the students (at my school), so what does that say for consistency? |
What I am implying is that good or bad results from a standardized test don't mean anything. Japanese students in general are notorious for incredible memorization, but lack critical thinking skills. It isn't limited to Japanese students either - it is an international problem. I noticed right away that my peers in college who earned the highest grades were usually the ones who would just regurgitate information from texts. They couldn't go beyond that. There is no accurate standardized testing procedure.
I'll give a very general and over-simplified example. Imagine a question on a standardized test to be:
In what year did the French Revolution begin?
Suppose 75% answered correctly with "1789". All this response shows is that 75% of the students tested could memorize a date.
Now, imagine the question was:
List one result of the French Revolution that changed world thought. Apply it to the United States of America.
Now, this is still far from a perfect question, but at least it encourages a bit more critical thinking. I'm not saying that this problem is limited to standardized testing. Teaching methods in general are at fault. History education in particular is a problem. Science and maths tend to be taught with the idea that the knowledge acquired can apply to most things in life, but art and music are just as close to affecting our world as anything. Art and music both directly relate to psychology where presentation affects reaction. That standardized tests omit these features is evidence that the name "standardized test" is misproperly applied and the system needs to be entirely discarded and restructured from scratch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What I am implying is that good or bad results from a standardized test don't mean anything. |
I know what you are trying to say, but I think you are partially wrong here. "Don't mean anything" is too harsh. Of course it means SOMEthing. It just depends on how you evaluate it, like I wrote.
Besides, standardized testing has its place in various countries, if for no other reason than to give universities a guideline for its applicants (not just in Japan). I don't claim the system is perfect, but how else would you evaluate so many tests? Just try scoring an essay exam on any subject, and you'll tear your hair out, whether the students are from your home country or another one trying to write in your language. Besides the variation in student answers, there is also the variation in teacher evaluation on those types of tests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest of Japan
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1601
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nismo, you don't have any idea what you are talking about on this one.
I have never seen a question like, "When was the French Revolution?" on any standardized test. That's the kind of question a piss-poor jr. high school teacher will put an a history chapter test.
Most standardized history examinations focus on cause and effect, interpreting presented information, comparisons, historical developments, and general understanding of historical periods.
Standardized testing is at the whim of how the subject is viewed at the time. The test you describe follows a 1950's view of history in which the purpose of history education was to present students with information of historical precedence which inspired patriotism. During this time history was felt to be a set of facts to be learned that provide every student with a general knowledge of the past with the purpose of inspiring pride of the the country they live.
How history is viewed is an ongoing debate. There is not a historian alive who would view history as a set a facts to be learned. For this reason modern standardized testing does not test history in the way you described. There are thousands of books on testing and probably hundreds of thousands of articles. Don't confuse a lazy or uniformed teacher's multiple choice test with standardized testing. Standardized testing in not just to set the students to a standard, but the quality of the teaching as well. The key is who sets the standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nismo
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 520
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guest of Japan wrote: |
Nismo, you don't have any idea what you are talking about on this one.
I have never seen a question like, "When was the French Revolution?" on any standardized test. That's the kind of question a piss-poor jr. high school teacher will put an a history chapter test. |
| Nismo wrote: |
| I'll give a very general and over-simplified example. |
I understand that you wouldn't see a question like that on a standardized test, but they aren't far-off. Have you looked at SAT questions lately? I do have an idea of what I am talking about because I just finished going through the system. I don't have the credentials to suggest a remedy, though that a layman can clearly see the flaws in the system shows just how bad the system is. I understand that it is a nearly impossible task to be able to ask questions which involve deep critical thinking because of the variety of answers that can come from it, but honestly - standardized test scores are not a measurement of intelligence at this point. What they do measure, though, is dedicated study, so I was going a bit overboard when I said they held no meaning at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homersimpson
Joined: 14 Feb 2003
Posts: 569
Location: Kagoshima
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I teach at a junior high and can tell you the level of study isn't much higher. I would say about 30% of the students really study, the remainder fall somewhere between study a bit and not at all. This is especially true of some of the third-year students. Right about this time of year it becomes blatantly clear who has no plans on entering high school or will settle for the lowest-level high school they can attend. That said, those 30% who do study, study very hard. They are the ones you see on their bicycles at 10 p.m. heading home (a.k.a. juku kids). Of course the methods of teaching used can always be debated, but I have some really sharp students, and they are more often than not the ones I focus on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
