4 ms·

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 natur

by 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.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Right, and I am not really arguing against you on this. For an example of places where not teaching to the test can go wrong, though, I need only look at some extended family that were only taught evolution, as it would be on some tests. Anecdotes being what they are, I'm interested in knowing if there is a large study on this. I'm also very open to thoughts on how to fix things. Knowing that it typically comes around to better tests... Edit: To be clear, my evolution example was supposed to be that they were only taught it because it would be on the tests. Not that they were only taught evolution.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > if there is a large study on this I'm not sure what "this" is, though. The question isn't well-posed, so I'm not sure what you would study. Absolutely there are many public school teachers that report that they are spending a lot of time teaching "to the test" rather than what they consider important. And this is a case of misaligned incentives. Overall mastery is important for the student's outcome going forward; the outcome of this, say, 5th grade standardized test doesn't affect their educational trajectory at all. But the outcome of that test is very important to the school's perception and the teacher's career. We'd all love better tests that really measure what we're trying to inculcate in students. But we also want tests that are easy to grade and very quantitative, which is in opposition to the other goal.
        taeric 3y ago
        "This" would be how many places are harmed by "teaching to the tests." For example, you are asserting that "there are many public school teachers that report that they are spending a lot of time.." but... where is this tabulated? Are there biases mitigated in the self reporting side of what you are talking about? I don't want to be dismissive of the idea that it is harmful. I have seen very little compelling evidence that it is as harmful as it is asserted. Both as a student and as a parent. Is akin to employees that are upset about long term compromises for short term gain. Yes, it happens. All too often, short term survival is the best thing for long term survival. (With the ack that it is until it isn't.) Which is why I would love to see data and studies on this. Indeed, if "teaching to the test" is the concern, how do I then interpret declining test scores? Failing to teach either to the test or the subject?

by taeric 3y ago

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.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Right, and I am not really arguing against you on this. For an example of places where not teaching to the test can go wrong, though, I need only look at some extended family that were only taught evolution, as it would be on some tests. Anecdotes being what they are, I'm interested in knowing if there is a large study on this. I'm also very open to thoughts on how to fix things. Knowing that it typically comes around to better tests... Edit: To be clear, my evolution example was supposed to be that they were only taught it because it would be on the tests. Not that they were only taught evolution.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > if there is a large study on this I'm not sure what "this" is, though. The question isn't well-posed, so I'm not sure what you would study. Absolutely there are many public school teachers that report that they are spending a lot of time teaching "to the test" rather than what they consider important. And this is a case of misaligned incentives. Overall mastery is important for the student's outcome going forward; the outcome of this, say, 5th grade standardized test doesn't affect their educational trajectory at all. But the outcome of that test is very important to the school's perception and the teacher's career. We'd all love better tests that really measure what we're trying to inculcate in students. But we also want tests that are easy to grade and very quantitative, which is in opposition to the other goal.
      - taeric 3y ago
        "This" would be how many places are harmed by "teaching to the tests." For example, you are asserting that "there are many public school teachers that report that they are spending a lot of time.." but... where is this tabulated? Are there biases mitigated in the self reporting side of what you are talking about? I don't want to be dismissive of the idea that it is harmful. I have seen very little compelling evidence that it is as harmful as it is asserted. Both as a student and as a parent. Is akin to employees that are upset about long term compromises for short term gain. Yes, it happens. All too often, short term survival is the best thing for long term survival. (With the ack that it is until it isn't.) Which is why I would love to see data and studies on this. Indeed, if "teaching to the test" is the concern, how do I then interpret declining test scores? Failing to teach either to the test or the subject?