|
Post by EscapeHatch on Feb 26, 2009 20:04:38 GMT -5
The title is a come on. Maybe.
I read recently about a test called Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. What caught my eye in the article was a concern that the test, among many other things, sought to determine what a student thought about certain political hot topics ranging such as those related to the environment.
OECD states that they seek to determine: "Are students well prepared for future challenges? Can they analyse, reason and communicate effectively? Do they have the capacity to continue learning throughout life?"
This seems like something that educators should know. There are law makers in this country that want to use this as a standard for measuring how our children are being educated as opposed to currently used tests. There are others that are concerned that this is really European liberal clap trap that is intended to further the liberal agenda in our schools and testing our kids in order to make sure their agenda is sticking.
Anyone else hear about this? Would any educators care to comment on this?
In other news, the United Nations may become involved in how American parents raise their children- dictating what a parent can or cannot do. This intrusion MAY be facilitated by the new administration.
Anyone else concerned? Is this another AB 777 faux pas by us overly paranoid conservatives?
|
|
bruceb
Man On The Street
Posts: 240
|
Post by bruceb on Feb 26, 2009 21:38:28 GMT -5
No,never heard anything about it.However the results looked for by OECD-Well prepared for the future,analyse,reason and communicate effectively and continue to learn throughout life-are a good benchmark for students.Sorry Escapehatch,I'm not alarmed,at least from the info you provided.I don't see where there ia any attempt to see what students think about political topics.I'd have to know more about it,and not from talk show hosts.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Feb 26, 2009 21:40:06 GMT -5
What is tested is what gets taught......
This is an important question. Nothing will change instructional practices faster than a high stakes test. Currently our standardized tests measure comprehension or an understanding of facts. In science you can raise your test scores by using flash cards for vocabulary. I would question, I mean I already do and out loud, if this is how you get an enduring understanding or an understanding that lasts past that current test or current school year. Science that offers students a chance to build an enduring understanding through discovery or inquiry is both harder to deliver and takes much longer. This is prohibitive if the only evaluation of their understanding is a multiple choice factoid recall instrument that really measures breadth instead of depth.
Like most teachers I have to balance my desire to provide a program that produces a deep and enduring understanding with my need to have them perform well on an instrument I think is lacking. If students had to take a test that required more analysis or dare we hope even application than we would see teaching change as a result. The schools that get the most wows (high tech high and others) and are considered cutting edge often do not have the same high stakes test environments.
My students clobber the students at high tech middle school on standardized testing even though those students are pre-screened and are rarely in need of remediation yet the program they provide is more like the one I wish I could provide. Our current test instruments would be really good preparation for "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire," or "Jeopardy'" but to me seem ill-equipped to drive a curriculum that wants students to think critically. This is not a gripe from someone whose school is facing sanctions. My students perform at or near the top of the county and perform very well in high school. I guess I would be better off if I hadn't visited high tech high so often. That is how we should be organizing instruction but it just doesn't fit the tests.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Feb 27, 2009 15:48:27 GMT -5
Larry, I appreciated your response. I understood about half of it, and I appreciated myself for getting that much.
You've said it before and you said it again in your post that you have a problem with how students are tested. You want to know what they understand as opposed to what they know. You want to know if students have the ability to critically analyze and extrapolate from that understanding be able to examine diverse situations.
What, then, is your opinion of PISA? Does it sound like the measuring tool that will tell you what you want to know about the education process?
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Feb 27, 2009 15:53:06 GMT -5
Bruce, I am not sure I should be alarmed, either. This is because I am not an educator and I can safely plead ignorance.
The reference to a political bent was from from comments made by legislators that I read a few days ago. I wish I could find the link so you and others here could read it. I believe it was an AP article, but, in all honesty, I am not sure.
As you said, you have to be wary about the source. I've made some bonehead mistakes here and there in reading something into something else that wasn't there. This is one of those mistakes I would like NOT to make.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Feb 27, 2009 18:25:26 GMT -5
Hatch, The people that publish tests are also the people that publish textbooks. You are talking about some serious financial stakes as well. I really do not know very much about PISA, but even if it is a good assessment it is doubtful it will replace what we currently use in the near future. The other problem is scoring. Tests that can be scantron scored are much cheaper and faster to score.
The other problem with the standardized tests is that they do not provide information that really helps guide your instruction. The information is too general for individual teachers to do much with. District wide you can perhaps see variation between schools or between sub-groups (economically disadvantaged, or certain ethnic groups as an example) or you can see variance between schools. School to school variation is really only useful if the schools have similar populations. What is funny is that the publishers of the test will tell you that the scores are not intended nor sufficient to evaluate a school's academic program yet that is the only real use the tests have. One more thing that is a problem is that student performance in a state is compared to other states when the testing instruments are different. Some states actually use norm referenced tests where students are compared to a group that is considered typical. They are designed to produce a variation rather than to test understanding of certain concepts. In California we use criterion referenced tests that measure understanding of pre-identified standards. Since our standards are more rigorous than many other states it only makes sense that our students score lower.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 27, 2009 19:46:35 GMT -5
What is tested is what gets taught...... This is an important question. Nothing will change instructional practices faster than a high stakes test. Currently our standardized tests measure comprehension or an understanding of facts. In science you can raise your test scores by using flash cards for vocabulary. I would question, I mean I already do and out loud, if this is how you get an enduring understanding or an understanding that lasts past that current test or current school year. Science that offers students a chance to build an enduring understanding through discovery or inquiry is both harder to deliver and takes much longer. This is prohibitive if the only evaluation of their understanding is a multiple choice factoid recall instrument that really measures breadth instead of depth. Like most teachers I have to balance my desire to provide a program that produces a deep and enduring understanding with my need to have them perform well on an instrument I think is lacking. If students had to take a test that required more analysis or dare we hope even application than we would see teaching change as a result. The schools that get the most wows (high tech high and others) and are considered cutting edge often do not have the same high stakes test environments. My students clobber the students at high tech middle school on standardized testing even though those students are pre-screened and are rarely in need of remediation yet the program they provide is more like the one I wish I could provide. Our current test instruments would be really good preparation for "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire," or "Jeopardy'" but to me seem ill-equipped to drive a curriculum that wants students to think critically. This is not a gripe from someone whose school is facing sanctions. My students perform at or near the top of the county and perform very well in high school. I guess I would be better off if I hadn't visited high tech high so often. That is how we should be organizing instruction but it just doesn't fit the tests. Well said! But as you pointed out isn't that one of the problems with standardized testing? It measures facts. When I taught I believed in a 3-phase exam, straight forward factual regurgitation, essay on a broad topic question allowing the student to incorporate facts and analysis (hopefully correct), and the third part---attribution. This was an image they never saw during the lecture and they had to factually attribute or qualify, connect, assign and most importantly why to the culture of origin. I found that the first 2 phases of my exams allowed the students to think critically about the image and why it would be attributed to a particular culture.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 27, 2009 19:50:27 GMT -5
Hatch, as Larry pointed out,scantron exams are cheap both to create and score. Unfortunately many of my colleagues only use scantron formats; so the writing component which really allows the student opportunities to think critically and assess is many times deleted due to money and SAs grading the exams.
|
|