7 ms·

I think the original criticism surrounding "teaching to the test" was that students were being taught useless shortcuts to answers rather than actually learning

I think the original criticism surrounding "teaching to the test" was that students were being taught useless shortcuts to answers rather than actually learning the material. I've never personally felt that the teachers I had ever did it though. One contrived example might be, "If you see "states' rights" anywhere in the question, then the answer is most likely going to be Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, or Henry Clay."

taeric 3y ago
Yeah, but again, this isn't as damning as it sounds. Teaching kids to play sports, you definitely start with the "stand out there and watch the ball in motion." Ideally, you want them to engage with the sport, but just getting them there with the gear is a big part of it.
- mlyle 3y ago
  I think it's pretty damning, actually. Spending most of your time circumventing the test and rote repetition undoes any learning of the real subject. I taught AP Microeconomics this past year. About a third of my time was spent teaching about different ways that the AP grading standards are picky and ways to exploit the test, because this is what is most important for the outcome they're worried about-- scoring a 5 on the exam. In turn, it didn't leave a lot of time for deeper discussions, simulations, etc, engaging with microeconomics.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    How my AP Econ (Macro+Micro) teacher tackled that was spend the majority of the the time teaching the Samuelson and Mankiw books and then spend 1 month having everyone practice College Board style tests. Tbf, in our HS AP Econ was gatekept for 12th graders, and most of us had at least 6-7 AP tests done already so we had experience with the exams already.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      I had mostly seniors with lots of AP experience too. AP Macro+Micro can work a lot better, because there's a few weeks of overlapping material. So it's the difference between fitting 45 hours of instructional material into 50 hours vs. fitting 80-85 into 100. The tight fit annoyed me, as did the strictly graded nature of the course. Two areas of particular annoyance: - I had a cohort of students who had entirely been through AP Calc, but fitting into the explanations expected for HS meant making somewhat bogus algebra based explanations (the slope of this line is double the other one, just because!!). A student who gave a calc-based explanation on the test would probably not get the points (frankly, a lot of the readers would not understand it). - About a third of the students had founded a "Game Theory" club on their own and were off in the weeds exploring game theory. I'd have loved to have taken a couple extra classes on the topic since they were already so interested and engaged, but I had no margin. I was forced to give the very simple 2 person payoff matrix form and leave the topic there. Again, I spent more time encouraging my students to not think too fancy.
      - alephnerd 3y ago
        This low key sounds like the environment in my high school XD. > had a cohort of students who had entirely been through AP Calc, but fitting into the explanations expected for HS meant making somewhat bogus algebra based explanations Yep. I remember that. We had the same problem as well in our class so our teacher spent that month prior to the exams teaching us Econ the Wrong/College Board Way. > I was forced to give the very simple 2 person payoff matrix form and leave the topic there Yep, I remember that too. A bunch of us were CS/Applied Math bound so we ended up expanding further on Optimization Theory and Game Theory via competitive math exams or working with our supportive AP Calc and E&M teachers who taught us how to hone knowledge in both concepts using math.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Odds are high we are talking past each other. Teaching the rules of the game is the same as teaching grading rubrics in many ways. And yes, learning the nature of rubrics is very important for students to know. Now, can you devolve to completely degenerate states where they are only playing the "meta topic" and not learning the topic? I mean, yeah? I'd wager the folks that can complete the meta topic still know more than the folks that can't even do that. You can also devolve into stagnation by thinking you can reduce all learning to "first principals." Such that I just don't see that as damning on its own. Back to my sports comparison, the technicalities and fundamentals of a sport are important. But you also do well to teach kids to get out there and play the game, even with loose rule enforcement and heavy help. Bumpers in a bowling match, as it were.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > Teaching the rules of the game is the same as teaching grading rubrics in many ways. I'm a big fan of teaching rubrics and even test-taking skills. But that's a far different thing from eviscerating your subject in order to teach points tests are likely to hit in isolation, which is happening a whole lot, especially when teachers are evaluated heavily on test outcomes.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Right, this is why I'm guessing we are talking past each other. I fully believe some places got degenerate and did it poorly. I'm not convinced every "teaching to the test" case our there is that, though. Often folks would whine about teaching to the tests for teaching how tests are scored. I'd love to see a large study on this. And now that I have kids in schools, I'm very interested in ways I can help them learn. At the same time I also want them to do well with grades. Knowing that is often two separate things.
        mlyle 3y ago
        For an example of how it can go wrong: I know for a fact that the competitive math class I teach makes a couple of standardized test measures go down-- especially "procedural knowledge". I know this because I've compared changes in performance to similar control students not taking the courses. I also know that it has a big positive impact on performance overall. And our students do pretty well in comp and a lot reach state championships. If I were strictly evaluated on standardized test outcomes, I would be asked to figure out how to pull those procedural knowledge scores up.
jewayne 3y ago
That seems to be a round-about criticism of the design of the individual tests. Ideally, the tests should be comprehensive enough that "gaming" the tests still requires mastering the material.

taeric 3y ago

Yeah, but again, this isn't as damning as it sounds. Teaching kids to play sports, you definitely start with the "stand out there and watch the ball in motion." Ideally, you want them to engage with the sport, but just getting them there with the gear is a big part of it.

mlyle 3y ago
I think it's pretty damning, actually. Spending most of your time circumventing the test and rote repetition undoes any learning of the real subject. I taught AP Microeconomics this past year. About a third of my time was spent teaching about different ways that the AP grading standards are picky and ways to exploit the test, because this is what is most important for the outcome they're worried about-- scoring a 5 on the exam. In turn, it didn't leave a lot of time for deeper discussions, simulations, etc, engaging with microeconomics.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  How my AP Econ (Macro+Micro) teacher tackled that was spend the majority of the the time teaching the Samuelson and Mankiw books and then spend 1 month having everyone practice College Board style tests. Tbf, in our HS AP Econ was gatekept for 12th graders, and most of us had at least 6-7 AP tests done already so we had experience with the exams already.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    I had mostly seniors with lots of AP experience too. AP Macro+Micro can work a lot better, because there's a few weeks of overlapping material. So it's the difference between fitting 45 hours of instructional material into 50 hours vs. fitting 80-85 into 100. The tight fit annoyed me, as did the strictly graded nature of the course. Two areas of particular annoyance: - I had a cohort of students who had entirely been through AP Calc, but fitting into the explanations expected for HS meant making somewhat bogus algebra based explanations (the slope of this line is double the other one, just because!!). A student who gave a calc-based explanation on the test would probably not get the points (frankly, a lot of the readers would not understand it). - About a third of the students had founded a "Game Theory" club on their own and were off in the weeds exploring game theory. I'd have loved to have taken a couple extra classes on the topic since they were already so interested and engaged, but I had no margin. I was forced to give the very simple 2 person payoff matrix form and leave the topic there. Again, I spent more time encouraging my students to not think too fancy.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      This low key sounds like the environment in my high school XD. > had a cohort of students who had entirely been through AP Calc, but fitting into the explanations expected for HS meant making somewhat bogus algebra based explanations Yep. I remember that. We had the same problem as well in our class so our teacher spent that month prior to the exams teaching us Econ the Wrong/College Board Way. > I was forced to give the very simple 2 person payoff matrix form and leave the topic there Yep, I remember that too. A bunch of us were CS/Applied Math bound so we ended up expanding further on Optimization Theory and Game Theory via competitive math exams or working with our supportive AP Calc and E&M teachers who taught us how to hone knowledge in both concepts using math.
- taeric 3y ago
  Odds are high we are talking past each other. Teaching the rules of the game is the same as teaching grading rubrics in many ways. And yes, learning the nature of rubrics is very important for students to know. Now, can you devolve to completely degenerate states where they are only playing the "meta topic" and not learning the topic? I mean, yeah? I'd wager the folks that can complete the meta topic still know more than the folks that can't even do that. You can also devolve into stagnation by thinking you can reduce all learning to "first principals." Such that I just don't see that as damning on its own. Back to my sports comparison, the technicalities and fundamentals of a sport are important. But you also do well to teach kids to get out there and play the game, even with loose rule enforcement and heavy help. Bumpers in a bowling match, as it were.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > Teaching the rules of the game is the same as teaching grading rubrics in many ways. I'm a big fan of teaching rubrics and even test-taking skills. But that's a far different thing from eviscerating your subject in order to teach points tests are likely to hit in isolation, which is happening a whole lot, especially when teachers are evaluated heavily on test outcomes.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Right, this is why I'm guessing we are talking past each other. I fully believe some places got degenerate and did it poorly. I'm not convinced every "teaching to the test" case our there is that, though. Often folks would whine about teaching to the tests for teaching how tests are scored. I'd love to see a large study on this. And now that I have kids in schools, I'm very interested in ways I can help them learn. At the same time I also want them to do well with grades. Knowing that is often two separate things.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        For an example of how it can go wrong: I know for a fact that the competitive math class I teach makes a couple of standardized test measures go down-- especially "procedural knowledge". I know this because I've compared changes in performance to similar control students not taking the courses. I also know that it has a big positive impact on performance overall. And our students do pretty well in comp and a lot reach state championships. If I were strictly evaluated on standardized test outcomes, I would be asked to figure out how to pull those procedural knowledge scores up.

jewayne 3y ago

That seems to be a round-about criticism of the design of the individual tests. Ideally, the tests should be comprehensive enough that "gaming" the tests still requires mastering the material.