Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Catfisher]

[lichtarbeiter]

[lichtarbeiter]

[goat]

This OP kid doesn't have a clue.

[lichtarbeiter]

[Nester Noodlemon]

[lichtarbeiter]

[Catfisher]

[lichtarbeiter]

[nero]

Look, the truth of the matter is we are face saving baby sitters who allow parents (mothers) a guilt free afternoon and evening of free time. After all, their little darlings are learning !!

It's for their future!!

They DON'T CARE that the hagwon system is flawed. They pay us to look after their kids, we take the money and do the best we can with the materials we are given and everyone is happy.

[Catfisher]

[thegadfly]

OK, Lichtar, I am going to work from the premise that you are serious in your suggestion, and want to improve the system, and are not just trolling....

First, right off the bat, to whom do we attribute any student's score? The most recent teacher or school? The teachers or schools that have had the most contact with the student? The teacher or school by which the student first encountered English? Studies indicate that the ability of one's kindergarten teacher is what sets the tone for all subsequent learning -- if you had a great kindergarten teacher, you do better in high school, regardless of the quality of your high school teachers....

Unfortunately, while we believe that better educators exist, we can not support that belief with empirical evidence -- which is why teacher evaluation and "merit pay" in the states is such a bone of contention. We know there are good teachers, mediocre teachers, and poor teachers, and we kinda think we know the things that make a teacher better or worse...but it has not yet been able to be quantified in a way that stands up to peer review...therefore, the most common method of teacher evaluation is anecdotal -- if students and parents THINK a teacher has helped, then the administrators accept that.

Until we have a metric upon which people can agree, and can account for the cumulative influences of all the teachers and educational situations in which a student has been placed, then a "standardized test" like you are suggesting would not only not work, but if used, would muddy the waters even further.

I'm not even addressing the corruption that would spring up with folks trying to "game the system" you suggest, or the relative ease of doing just that.

What you suggested does not measure what you imagined it would measure. You can certainly measure a student's current ability in a subject (within the parameters and scope of the test design -- hope you design an accurate test that actually DOES measure a student's true ability, and not isolated skills out of context, or the student's ability to recall idiosyncratic usages or exceptions to the rules), but even if you DO somehow make a test that is an accurate measure of ability (and again, there is doubt that even THIS feat is possible), and administer it in a way so as to allow it to retain its validity, you STILL won't be able to reliably ascertain how, when, and where the student learned to do what the student has done.

That was a pretty long sentence!

To make a short story long -- what you suggest won't work, for too many reasons to explain clearly, succinctly, and in a way that a layman could understand. It would be like me going in to a meeting of engineers and saying, "you know, we should make a car that uses water as a fuel -- why don't you guys do that? Just make a car that can run on water! Or better yet -- the sun uses fusion, and it isn't even all that smart -- why don't you make a car that uses fusion!" They'd tell me that it can't currently be done, that it isn't a "simple" thing, and if I claim that they aren't giving my ideas a chance (or "reading carefully enough") they would just stare at me in slack-jawed amazement...much as you are being stared at....

Points for wanting to improve the system, but you need to go back to the drawing board and learn to control a whole slew more variables than you have even considered.

[lichtarbeiter]

[thegadfly]

[bobbybigfoot]