4 ms·

The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career lead to a

by mlinsey 16y ago

The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career lead to a ton of stress and probably aren't a good measure of overall learning, many frequent tests that each individually aren't consequential allow kids to get a sense of their progress with less of the stress. I really liked the Prof's Cizek's quote in the article: "What’s best for kids is frequent testing, where even if they do badly, they can get help and improve and have the satisfaction of doing better,” he said. “Kids don’t get self-esteem by people just telling them they are wonderful.”

Jun8 16y ago
You're right, the PC, "every child is special" approach in the US (esp. in colleges) is not doing the students any good and some level of rigorous reinforcement of knowledge is beneficial. However, tests let the kids focus only on the "answer" for a narrowly specified question. This may be good for school but is a horrible way to approach real-life problems which are broad and do nor have clear answers.
wisty 16y ago
The other point is that the tests should be "formative", which is educationalist babble for "just for fun". Frequent summative (non-formative, i.e. stuff that determines which uni you go to, or whether you can progress to the next level) tests are bad and dangerous, as they force the kids to conform every day of their lives. If kids want to blow off a formative test, then it's no big deal. If a kid makes a few silly mistakes, they don't have to beat themselves up. They shouldn't have to (or even want to) stay up to 2am cramming. They should be having fun with friends, learning to cook, playing sports, learning an instrument, or hacking on their graphics calculators. But if they flunk, it means they aren't learning, and something needs to be done.

by mlinsey 16y ago

Jun8 16y ago

You're right, the PC, "every child is special" approach in the US (esp. in colleges) is not doing the students any good and some level of rigorous reinforcement of knowledge is beneficial. However, tests let the kids focus only on the "answer" for a narrowly specified question. This may be good for school but is a horrible way to approach real-life problems which are broad and do nor have clear answers.

wisty 16y ago

The other point is that the tests should be "formative", which is educationalist babble for "just for fun". Frequent summative (non-formative, i.e. stuff that determines which uni you go to, or whether you can progress to the next level) tests are bad and dangerous, as they force the kids to conform every day of their lives. If kids want to blow off a formative test, then it's no big deal. If a kid makes a few silly mistakes, they don't have to beat themselves up. They shouldn't have to (or even want to) stay up to 2am cramming. They should be having fun with friends, learning to cook, playing sports, learning an instrument, or hacking on their graphics calculators. But if they flunk, it means they aren't learning, and something needs to be done.