Laura Lukes
May 17, 07
All three writers had good points to their essays, but at the same time, I disagreed with some of their points.
Paul Goodman suggested that everyone should abolish grading. He says that a teacher uses grading to push students that are lazy, but he says that is not a way to push a student. My opinion of this is that if there was no grades, students would have nothing to work for anything. They would not put the effort into their work if there was no purpose to work for. Students work hard and study for grades. Most students want to strive to get good grades. If we had no good grades, what would the students have to work for. They would not have to listen to what is being taught, nor do they have to put any effort in the class. Teachers need these grades to be able to tell if his or her students is comprehending what is being taught to them.
Howard Gardner talked about testing and how it is not right to make the students rush. He was also talking about the standford tests that a person has to take to be able to get into a college. I do believe that we need to get rid of timed tests. I hate being rushed. When I took the ACT's, it was really stressful! The teacher would call out twenty minutes left, and I began to panic. Ten minutes went by and I still had a few question left. I just filled in the rest of the bubbles. If I would have had more time to take the tests, I would not have panicked like I did, and would have done a better job. Tests should be based on what the student has learned, not by how fast he/she can take a test.
Lastly, Diane Ravitch wrote about why she thought tests were beneficial. I aggree with Diane. Tests are beneficial to the teachers. They let the teachers know what the students have learned and what they need help on. The teachers would not have a clue what the students have learned without testing them on that subject.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Effects of Testing
17 May 07
Taylor Effling
In each of these three essays, the authors focus on the effects that testing and grading have on students in school. Each of these essays presents the problems associated with standardized testing and offers solutions to these problems.
In "A Proposal to Abolish Grading", Paul Goodman explains how grading by institutions is pointless and that each employer should rather have their own job-aptitude test . He suggests that parents and students would be the chief objectors to abolishing grading. I would have to agree, I believe that some parents are very competitive, they always want their child to be the best. Also, some students always want to get the highest grade and be the best, growing up I was much like this. Paul Goodman goes on to say, "if one can establish in the student the belief that one is testing not to grade and make invidious comparisons but for his own advantage, the student should normally seek his own level, where he is challenged and yet capable, rather than trying to get by." I agree with this also, too many times when a child doesn’t do well they label themself as being dumb. Once a child believes he isn’t as smart as the rest, they will stop trying, and think that they are incapable of learning or completing a task.
In Howard Gardner’s "Test for aptitude, Not for speed", he suggests that getting rid of timed tests would be effective as there are hardly any jobs in life which require great speed. I feel timed tests are important in some ways, they show that an individual knows that material better and is able to answer quickly. I agree that people with disabilities should be given more time and that they should screen for disabilities. Getting rid of timed tests would allow everyone a fair chance to finish and it would give a person time to show their total abilities. When a person knows they are being timed, they may feel an increase in pressure and anxiety. This may cause them to become nervous and not do as well as they would on an a test that wasn’t timed. I agree that most people probably wouldn’t take that much more time. Overall, not having timed tests would be most beneficial as everyone would have a fair chance to complete all problems to the best of their ability.
In Diane Ravitch’s "In Defense of Testing", she tells how no one likes testing, but it is necessary for our well being. Her statement, "test and standards are a necessary fact of life" seems very true to me. Exams in schools tell public officials how efficiently programs are working and where more money needs to be spent. I believe the No Child Left Behind Act is not necessary though. I think it is actually hurting our public school systems, as teachers are making the material easier just so all students can meet the requirements set by the act. I agree with Diane Ravitch’s idea of a good test, as many times multiple choice tests encourage guessing. On the Stanford Aptitude Tests as a younger child, I remember many of friends saying they just guessed on it to get done with it quicker. So many tests also include information which they don’t expect the average student to be able to answer, but they put it on there to see if any exceptional students can do it.
Every one of these essays provided good information about testing and grading within our school systems and the set backs and benefits associated with it. I feel standardized testing will always be a part of our education system. It seems to be the most efficient way, and also is cost effective. You would need a lot more people to correct a non-multiple choice test, rather than have a computer scan 100 tests/minute as it is now. I could see them doing away with time constraints though, as more and more people have trouble finishing the tests.
Taylor Effling
In each of these three essays, the authors focus on the effects that testing and grading have on students in school. Each of these essays presents the problems associated with standardized testing and offers solutions to these problems.
In "A Proposal to Abolish Grading", Paul Goodman explains how grading by institutions is pointless and that each employer should rather have their own job-aptitude test . He suggests that parents and students would be the chief objectors to abolishing grading. I would have to agree, I believe that some parents are very competitive, they always want their child to be the best. Also, some students always want to get the highest grade and be the best, growing up I was much like this. Paul Goodman goes on to say, "if one can establish in the student the belief that one is testing not to grade and make invidious comparisons but for his own advantage, the student should normally seek his own level, where he is challenged and yet capable, rather than trying to get by." I agree with this also, too many times when a child doesn’t do well they label themself as being dumb. Once a child believes he isn’t as smart as the rest, they will stop trying, and think that they are incapable of learning or completing a task.
In Howard Gardner’s "Test for aptitude, Not for speed", he suggests that getting rid of timed tests would be effective as there are hardly any jobs in life which require great speed. I feel timed tests are important in some ways, they show that an individual knows that material better and is able to answer quickly. I agree that people with disabilities should be given more time and that they should screen for disabilities. Getting rid of timed tests would allow everyone a fair chance to finish and it would give a person time to show their total abilities. When a person knows they are being timed, they may feel an increase in pressure and anxiety. This may cause them to become nervous and not do as well as they would on an a test that wasn’t timed. I agree that most people probably wouldn’t take that much more time. Overall, not having timed tests would be most beneficial as everyone would have a fair chance to complete all problems to the best of their ability.
In Diane Ravitch’s "In Defense of Testing", she tells how no one likes testing, but it is necessary for our well being. Her statement, "test and standards are a necessary fact of life" seems very true to me. Exams in schools tell public officials how efficiently programs are working and where more money needs to be spent. I believe the No Child Left Behind Act is not necessary though. I think it is actually hurting our public school systems, as teachers are making the material easier just so all students can meet the requirements set by the act. I agree with Diane Ravitch’s idea of a good test, as many times multiple choice tests encourage guessing. On the Stanford Aptitude Tests as a younger child, I remember many of friends saying they just guessed on it to get done with it quicker. So many tests also include information which they don’t expect the average student to be able to answer, but they put it on there to see if any exceptional students can do it.
Every one of these essays provided good information about testing and grading within our school systems and the set backs and benefits associated with it. I feel standardized testing will always be a part of our education system. It seems to be the most efficient way, and also is cost effective. You would need a lot more people to correct a non-multiple choice test, rather than have a computer scan 100 tests/minute as it is now. I could see them doing away with time constraints though, as more and more people have trouble finishing the tests.
Should Testing be an Important Part of the Grade
Carrie Egging
5-17-07
Tests have been used for many years to determine how well the information teachers are teaching is being learned. However there have been many arguments as to how well these tests actually help students learn. Paul Goodman, Howard Garner, and Diane Ravitch all have very different ideas on the usefulness of tests.
Paul Goodman believes that grading should be abolished and that tests should only be given as an entry exam for colleges. I both agree and disagree with this. I feel that it is important to take tests so that a student has a need to keep up with the school work and actually try and learn what the class offers. However, I sometimes feel like too much of the class grade is based on tests and a persons ability to take a test. I also find that it may be unfair that admission to a college be based just on a test grade. The person may be very smart but be horrible at taking tests and thus they don’t have as many opportunities as someone who is good at taking tests and might not be as smart.
Howard Gardner shares some of the same views as Goodman. He doesn’t think that testing should be such a huge part of a person’s grade. He believes that people shouldn’t be pressured by the time they have to take tests. They should be giving the full time they need to actually think through things and not be pressured into answering too fast. He also believes that a person should be able to use dictionaries or have access to the web while test taking. I believe that although supplementary tools are sometimes used in “the real world,” there are a lot of instances where a person needs to be able to know things off the top of their head. Occupations such as surgery or athletic training there may not be time to look up information in order to make a decision. I also think that time constraints are needed for the fact that people need to be able work under pressure. Depending on what a person’s occupation is, there can be very stressful and time demanding jobs where a person only has a certain amount of time to accomplish something.
Diane Ravitch has a totally different view from both Gardner and Goodman. She believes that testing is extremely important. She believes that without testing, more students would be left behind in the schooling systems. She also argues that testing shows whether a program is making a difference. I once again both agree and disagree with Ravitch. I do think that testing is important to check a student’s progress and as one form of a way to see how to grade someone for the class. However I do not think that testing should be the only thing used by teachers for grading.
Another thing that I have thought about was just the way that a person was tested. From personal experience I have found that in a multiple choice test, a person doesn’t have to learn their material as well. It is all true that if someone knows how to take a multiple choice test, they really don’t have to know too much about the material. I feel that although essay tests are more difficult, generally speaking, it gives a test taker more of an opportunity to express their selves and show that they do know at least part of the information. It also shows that a person is able to think on their feet and be able to come up with an answer from their knowledge rather than picking an answer from a group of answers. I also think that lab based items should be giving more credit. Labs are there for people to actually apply what they have learned, and if someone is able to apply what they have learned then they have to have a fairly good understanding of what they have learned.
Tests, Are they for the Best?
Everyone is going to have their own opinions toward what they feel is the best way for testing. Some people believe that tests should be abolished, others just want them to be changed up a little and then there are some who do not want anything to change and think tests are given just as they should be given. Reading through three different opinions I came across things that i agreed with and other that I did not.
In Paul Goodman's opinion, he stated that he wished to see tests abolished. This I do not agree with. Yes, tests are strenuous, but at the same they are there to help the teachers or professors figure out who is understanding and who is not. With this type of information available to the teachers, they are able to change their ways of teaching for certain students. Without tests how else would the teachers know if the students are actually understanding or just saying that they do in order to be left alone. Goodman states that there are many good reasons for tests, but if they are aimed to discover weaknesses then they should not be given. In a way I agree with Goodman. Tests should not be what determines whether or not a person is held back or pushed up the ladder. It should simply be there for teachers' purpose to figure out how well they are teaching and if the students are understanding.
As for timing the tests I totally agree that they are meant for aptitude not speed. Howard Gardner made a good point when he included that students with special needs are allowed more time on specific test such as the SAT's. He asked why others that do not have problems taking tests are denied extra time during exams. I agree. Students that have special needs should be given extra time to take tests, but so should other students who just simply ask for that extra five minutes. How do we know if a student taking a test under a strict amount of time is going to do better than if they had all day to take the test? More than likely if we allowed students to take there time of certain tests we would see a higher grade average than those who were timed.
Granted this is a tough thing to decide because in all of these situations we have to know where to draw the line. One student should not be able to take all day to work on one test because if that was the case then there would not be anything getting accomplished in the schools. All that I am trying to get across is that students that do not have the special needs should also be allowed that take that extra ten to fifteen minutes if it is needed.
In Diane Ravitch's opinion, she made a good point of how to test should be set up or what they should consist of. I believe as well as Ravitch that a good test should consist of a mix of essay, problem solving, short answer, and even some multiple-choice questions. This allows students a greater change toward a higher grade. With these type of tests, if a person was not good at essay questions then they would be able to make it up throughout the rest of the test. And the same could go for any other person. If they had problems with a certain part of a test then if would be okay because then not all of the test would be set up in that type of format. They would have a mixed format, which would give some people a better chance of doing well on the tests.
With all three of the opinions, there was no right or wrong one that I was able to pick out. They all clearly stated their point of view and they all backed themselves up with examples that helped the readers better understand what they were getting across. Again, there were certain things in each opinion that I completely agreed with and there were some that I did not.
In Paul Goodman's opinion, he stated that he wished to see tests abolished. This I do not agree with. Yes, tests are strenuous, but at the same they are there to help the teachers or professors figure out who is understanding and who is not. With this type of information available to the teachers, they are able to change their ways of teaching for certain students. Without tests how else would the teachers know if the students are actually understanding or just saying that they do in order to be left alone. Goodman states that there are many good reasons for tests, but if they are aimed to discover weaknesses then they should not be given. In a way I agree with Goodman. Tests should not be what determines whether or not a person is held back or pushed up the ladder. It should simply be there for teachers' purpose to figure out how well they are teaching and if the students are understanding.
As for timing the tests I totally agree that they are meant for aptitude not speed. Howard Gardner made a good point when he included that students with special needs are allowed more time on specific test such as the SAT's. He asked why others that do not have problems taking tests are denied extra time during exams. I agree. Students that have special needs should be given extra time to take tests, but so should other students who just simply ask for that extra five minutes. How do we know if a student taking a test under a strict amount of time is going to do better than if they had all day to take the test? More than likely if we allowed students to take there time of certain tests we would see a higher grade average than those who were timed.
Granted this is a tough thing to decide because in all of these situations we have to know where to draw the line. One student should not be able to take all day to work on one test because if that was the case then there would not be anything getting accomplished in the schools. All that I am trying to get across is that students that do not have the special needs should also be allowed that take that extra ten to fifteen minutes if it is needed.
In Diane Ravitch's opinion, she made a good point of how to test should be set up or what they should consist of. I believe as well as Ravitch that a good test should consist of a mix of essay, problem solving, short answer, and even some multiple-choice questions. This allows students a greater change toward a higher grade. With these type of tests, if a person was not good at essay questions then they would be able to make it up throughout the rest of the test. And the same could go for any other person. If they had problems with a certain part of a test then if would be okay because then not all of the test would be set up in that type of format. They would have a mixed format, which would give some people a better chance of doing well on the tests.
With all three of the opinions, there was no right or wrong one that I was able to pick out. They all clearly stated their point of view and they all backed themselves up with examples that helped the readers better understand what they were getting across. Again, there were certain things in each opinion that I completely agreed with and there were some that I did not.
Testing and Grades; Is There a Need?
Sara Tillman
May 17, 2007
I appreciate all three authors view and opinions, but have some opinions of my own.
Paul Goodman makes many valid points, but he is being very discriminative in his views. He believes that his idea of no grades will only be successful in a prestigious college like Harvard. Overall, I disagree with his idea about grading. I think that grading is a structured way for teachers to assess their students progress, or lack of it. Grading does lead to some competition, but eliminated grading will not stop competition among classmates. Furthermore, I think a little competition is healthy. Once students graduate from college they will have to have the strength to go out into the real world and compete for jobs, and etc.
I feel that Howard Gardner has a very good point, but then when I look at the letters of response I doubt my thoughts. I am one of those students who take a test to the very last minute, and I think that I could do a lot better on standardized tests if I had a little more time. However, if more time was allowed for certain students there would be no efficient way to test everyone the same. Garver Moore said it the best when he said, "the SAT isn't there to make people feel good".
Out of all of the authors, I agree the most with Diane Ravitch. Even though she is short and semi-harsh with her view she still gets to the point and makes a valid argument. Students need to be tested to see what their capabilities are. For instant, if one must go in for brain surgery, does she want the surgeon who works really hard but may need a little extra time to get the job done, or does she want the surgeon who was the top of her class and gets the job done with time to spare. Reality can be harsh at times, but once an individual realizes their capabilities (perhaps by grades and test scores) they can utilize their strengths and work on their weaknesses.
May 17, 2007
I appreciate all three authors view and opinions, but have some opinions of my own.
Paul Goodman makes many valid points, but he is being very discriminative in his views. He believes that his idea of no grades will only be successful in a prestigious college like Harvard. Overall, I disagree with his idea about grading. I think that grading is a structured way for teachers to assess their students progress, or lack of it. Grading does lead to some competition, but eliminated grading will not stop competition among classmates. Furthermore, I think a little competition is healthy. Once students graduate from college they will have to have the strength to go out into the real world and compete for jobs, and etc.
I feel that Howard Gardner has a very good point, but then when I look at the letters of response I doubt my thoughts. I am one of those students who take a test to the very last minute, and I think that I could do a lot better on standardized tests if I had a little more time. However, if more time was allowed for certain students there would be no efficient way to test everyone the same. Garver Moore said it the best when he said, "the SAT isn't there to make people feel good".
Out of all of the authors, I agree the most with Diane Ravitch. Even though she is short and semi-harsh with her view she still gets to the point and makes a valid argument. Students need to be tested to see what their capabilities are. For instant, if one must go in for brain surgery, does she want the surgeon who works really hard but may need a little extra time to get the job done, or does she want the surgeon who was the top of her class and gets the job done with time to spare. Reality can be harsh at times, but once an individual realizes their capabilities (perhaps by grades and test scores) they can utilize their strengths and work on their weaknesses.
Consider This
Wow, three different views that seem to have some validity. It is very amazing to me that all three have vastly different views, but at the same time make good points.
The first author, Paul Goodman, makes what some my say as a stupid argument. Schools should abolish testing all together. On the surface, this seems ludicrous. He argues that students will actually do better when they are not being pushed along. Students will come into who they are, not by being shown their weaknesses, but by letting them chose their strengths. I tend to agree with Goodman at a certain level.
Howard Gardner argues that standard tests do not bring out the best result. The purpose of testing should be individualized to each test taker. Individualizing tests by allowing other resources and time limit changes is a radical thought. I tend to agree with Howard at a certain level.
Diane Ravitch thinks that most all tests serve a purpose. This is more inline with our thinking but is it right? Do all tests serve a purpose?
I tend NOT to agree with her. I guess the world will never know.
The first author, Paul Goodman, makes what some my say as a stupid argument. Schools should abolish testing all together. On the surface, this seems ludicrous. He argues that students will actually do better when they are not being pushed along. Students will come into who they are, not by being shown their weaknesses, but by letting them chose their strengths. I tend to agree with Goodman at a certain level.
Howard Gardner argues that standard tests do not bring out the best result. The purpose of testing should be individualized to each test taker. Individualizing tests by allowing other resources and time limit changes is a radical thought. I tend to agree with Howard at a certain level.
Diane Ravitch thinks that most all tests serve a purpose. This is more inline with our thinking but is it right? Do all tests serve a purpose?
I tend NOT to agree with her. I guess the world will never know.
Testing for the Future...or Not
Being nineteen years old and having gone through the many rigorous years of elementary, middle school, and high school education, I've come to realize a lot about life and testing that is incorportated to supposedly determine our future. I personally am one who has not really struggled in getting good grades, that is until I came to college. No, I'm not necessarily flunking or anything, but I do know that I could do better than a 2.8. I have always been one who does better when under stress when it comes to testing, but the stress has often times influenced how well I have been able to complete my tests and the time in which it has taken me. In high school it seemed to be more of a problem for me seeing as to how I was always "competing" against my fellow classmates and friends to see who could score higher on the ACT or even the tests given everyday in class. Many students strive to be the best of the best and those who have the potential seem to get left in the dust, which is why I agree with Goodman.
I personally enjoyed reading Goodman's essay because I often times have felt that it was only me who felt that way about testing. Testing definitely has its pros and cons, much like everything else in life. What I don't think many people take into account are the stresses and anxiety that go along with grading and tests. For example, my roommate this year was one who did not deal with test taking, especially math. She was put on medication that would help to slow her heart rate down so that she could some what focus on testing. She had to go at great lengths to try and calm herself down and to try and not let that influence her academics. I too get extremely nervous and find myself more times than not doubting my ability to do well on a test.
Another factor invovled in test taking that I don't feel is very fair is the implementation of multiple choice questions. Yes, I like others really like multiple choice questions because who can go wrong with having a chance of 25% in getting a question right? However, if you're a good guesser than multiple choice questions are a great thing for you, but they really don't measure your intelligence. Overall grading means more stress for everyone. Teachers are pressured to place students in a certain category, students are constantly stressed out in trying to make the grade, and those capable of being an A or B student are left behind because of the stresses involved. Doing away with grading would mean less stress for everyone and more time in improving the quality and value of life and most importantly education.
I personally enjoyed reading Goodman's essay because I often times have felt that it was only me who felt that way about testing. Testing definitely has its pros and cons, much like everything else in life. What I don't think many people take into account are the stresses and anxiety that go along with grading and tests. For example, my roommate this year was one who did not deal with test taking, especially math. She was put on medication that would help to slow her heart rate down so that she could some what focus on testing. She had to go at great lengths to try and calm herself down and to try and not let that influence her academics. I too get extremely nervous and find myself more times than not doubting my ability to do well on a test.
Another factor invovled in test taking that I don't feel is very fair is the implementation of multiple choice questions. Yes, I like others really like multiple choice questions because who can go wrong with having a chance of 25% in getting a question right? However, if you're a good guesser than multiple choice questions are a great thing for you, but they really don't measure your intelligence. Overall grading means more stress for everyone. Teachers are pressured to place students in a certain category, students are constantly stressed out in trying to make the grade, and those capable of being an A or B student are left behind because of the stresses involved. Doing away with grading would mean less stress for everyone and more time in improving the quality and value of life and most importantly education.
What About Those Tests?
Many of my tests have always come at the wrong time for me. I would like to be allowed to take them when I am ready and without a time limit. I have a hard time with the more difficult course material, especially when I am trying to recall the specific information to be able to answer the questions. Why does there need to be a time limit? Obviously I would not be sitting there looking out the window, I would be jotting down things that popped into my head until I recall the right answer or I would finish the remainder of the test and come back to that question before I turn in my exam. If I could not think of anything within ten minutes, I would give up and turn in my paper. I took a class in which my brain could not comprehend the material at a fast pace and I failed the class. I did not ask for special time to take my tests but I could have at least tried to speak with the instructor about my problems.
I also have a problem with instructors who do not allow you to keep the graded exams. If my purpose here is to learn the material, wouldn’t that justify giving my graded test back to me? I did have one instructor who allowed me to go over one of my old exams and I wanted to take notes on the questions I had gotten wrong and I was not allowed to. How will I know what information I need to concentrate on or what exactly is all “jacked up” in my head if I am not allowed to have my exam? I do not have a photographic memory and I can’t remember what the questions were, let alone what answers I chose, even ten minutes after I have turned the test in.
I have also seen students cheating on tests and I have also heard others talking about cheating on an exam when I hear them talking in the hallways between classes. Do the rich students deserve to be treated different than those of us who are poor? In Paul Goodman’s essay he hints towards the subject of rich students being given better grades. I agree with his presumption about the “prestigious Universities” schema.
Testing does lead to competition. In some of the classes I have taken, there has been so much competition that I actually saw a student get pushed aside by one of the popular crowd. I felt so bad for that person. I am older and have been pushed aside many times but I no longer let this intimidate me. I am what I am, I do what I can do, and I don’t expect to be on top of the pile looking down on all of the unfortunate people. I guess because I am older, I don’t need all of the recognition that some people require.
My overall GPA is in the C range but I feel like I work so hard to even get that grade. For some people the subject matter is easy, but I have not been able to find a class offered at this school that was like that for me. When I get my diploma, I hope my employer will look beyond the low GPA and evaluate me by my work and my dedication to learn my new job.
I also have a problem with instructors who do not allow you to keep the graded exams. If my purpose here is to learn the material, wouldn’t that justify giving my graded test back to me? I did have one instructor who allowed me to go over one of my old exams and I wanted to take notes on the questions I had gotten wrong and I was not allowed to. How will I know what information I need to concentrate on or what exactly is all “jacked up” in my head if I am not allowed to have my exam? I do not have a photographic memory and I can’t remember what the questions were, let alone what answers I chose, even ten minutes after I have turned the test in.
I have also seen students cheating on tests and I have also heard others talking about cheating on an exam when I hear them talking in the hallways between classes. Do the rich students deserve to be treated different than those of us who are poor? In Paul Goodman’s essay he hints towards the subject of rich students being given better grades. I agree with his presumption about the “prestigious Universities” schema.
Testing does lead to competition. In some of the classes I have taken, there has been so much competition that I actually saw a student get pushed aside by one of the popular crowd. I felt so bad for that person. I am older and have been pushed aside many times but I no longer let this intimidate me. I am what I am, I do what I can do, and I don’t expect to be on top of the pile looking down on all of the unfortunate people. I guess because I am older, I don’t need all of the recognition that some people require.
My overall GPA is in the C range but I feel like I work so hard to even get that grade. For some people the subject matter is easy, but I have not been able to find a class offered at this school that was like that for me. When I get my diploma, I hope my employer will look beyond the low GPA and evaluate me by my work and my dedication to learn my new job.
Matt Pepin's Week 1 Assignment
ENGL 210
Matt Pepin
5/17/07
Week 1 Assignment
A Proposal to Abolish Grading
Goodman makes the assumption that if half a dozen of the prestigious universities abolished grading, other educational institutions would follow suit. Part of the irony is that the schools he names as prestigious require some of the most rigorous standards for high grades and SAT scores in order to be considered for acceptance. He further states that he "thinks" the majority of professors agree with his assessment and uses his collection of essays, Examining in Harvard College, as proof that these essays prove the consensus of professors agree. Goodman fails to give any concrete data, and as far as the reader is concerned, these essays could just as easily deal with qualities that are very difficult or impossible to test; qualities such as integrity, compassion, honesty, morality, valor, and etc.
Without testing, how does the school know that the student is ready for the next level of course they will need to take. If one doesn't show that they are able to pass General Chemistry I and II, how will they be able to grasp Organic or Physical Chemistry. Is it fair to the student, the reputation of the school, or the financers of the education not to have a barometer of how a student is doing in comparison to others?
Goodman purports that grading stifles growth and mastery of a trade that would be more honorably served and nurtured by proving to their guild of peers what their capabilities were. He fails to mention the journey of learning from others that had to be met before they could argue their case or prove themselves for their final acceptance. Did everyone who endeavored to become accepted in their field succeed, and of those who did, were they not also criticized as well as praised by their teachers along the way. Wasn't there also competition, or as Goodman puts it, "climbing on his friend's neck", as part of the process of success and failure?
The author defends laziness, risk of failing, being downgraded, and conceit that one is already perfect to justify not being able to make the grade, which in this case is high marks on examinations. His defense that a student might be book-tired, the work doesn't suit them at this time, this school or this subject doesn't interest them and thus a waste of time and possibly a waste of life is the result, has no merit. If the student isn't in college to apply themselves, grades are a good way of reflecting this and maybe the student doesn't belong in higher education anyway. The world is becoming smaller and more competitive every day. People are graded not only in school, but evaluated and graded on their performance in their jobs. Excuses doesn't get one far in a career, performance that can be measured does.
I do not grant the author's assumptions. He fails to mention the responsibility gained from competition in grading and omits the effort needed to succeed. I do not know of any student that enjoys testing and the apprehension of what grade they will receive. Many of the classes we take we feel are not necessary to our majors but most of us feel that some standard or benchmark is necessary to make a degree meaningful.
Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed
Gardner assumes that SAT exams should not have a time limit. Through the examples that he gives, an explicit case can be made for allowing individuals with disabilities more time. If SAT's are to remain timed, there are valid reasons where time extensions or other allowances would be suitable. But this also opens the floodgates to an array of disorders real or imagined that could become so numerous as to make having a timed SAT be meaningless for a large proportion of test-takers.
I believe he opens himself to criticism by stating that eliminating the timed component would emphasize that background knowledge, seriousness of purpose and effort, instead of speed are essentials of good scholarship. The ability to answer questions in a timely manner on an SAT indicates that the student is more proficient and familiar with the subject matter, which is the purpose of the SAT.
In the last paragraph Gardner advocates allowing students to bring along dictionaries and have access to the WEB as this would more accurately duplicate actual working conditions. Without a time limit, and the use of the WEB and a dictionary, I believe the concept of the SAT is nullified. I think he would have a stronger case by advocating everyone should have an equal chance for an education and acceptance at the school of their choice.
Letters of Response to Howard Gardner
-Thomas Johnson Jr.
Mr. Johnson speculates that having exacting time constraints for SAT's is rational because it tests the student's ability to perform well under pressure. Though he offers no data for proof I agree with his assumption. College is a path that puts a student under deadlines and pressure. Real life jobs mirror these conditions and I believe Mr. Johnson's subjective assumption has merit.
-Garver Moore
Mr. Moore's last line is the best i have read in the entire chapter. The SAT test is just that- a test, not something to make someone feel good. Standardization coupled with a time frame is a better indicator of a person's aptitude than a person who is allowed unlimited time, a dictionary, laptop and a text book. He makes a valid claim in supporting a test in which conditions are held constant so that only a student's brain is responsible for his or her score. I would have never had to study for my driver's test if I'd been allowed the manual and a laptop. The evidence is implicit, and the whole concept is just common sense.
-Arnie Lichten
Arnie is quick and to the point. Her assumption is welcome to the real world where pressures and deadlines are reality. Her evidence is evident, we have all had deadlines that we'd rather had been able to put off but reality paid us a visit.
-Janet Rudolph
I believe Janet makes exceptions for professions that have the liberty of being done when they are done. Writers and artists are great professions if one can make a living at it. If they can't work quickly or balance a check book, not much harm is caused. Pilots, brain surgeons, corporate managers, and computer programmers to name a few, work under different pressures and deadlines. Her assumption is faulty in that it belittles those who work under pressures and deadlines and she included a tiny portion of society. For me, her argument was not persuasive and was annoying. I agree with her assumption that we humans do not fit into standardized boxes but parameters and standards are necessary for life, school, and an occupation.
In Defense of Testing- Diane Ravitch
Diane's assumptions on testing are so explicit as to invite the implicit about the importance of testing. She points out that though no one likes being tested, tests and standards are a necessary fact of life for our own protection and for constructive use. Concerning education, she makes a wonderful statement about testing. "...tests should be used to improve education, not ration it. Every child should have access to a high-quality education."
I believe most critics would agree with her assumptions. Her subject matter is engaging and provide solid ideas on what tests should entail and how they should be used. She points out that the testers should be tested to make sure they are qualified and know their subject matter well so they are capable of teaching young children.
Contrary to Paul Goodman's article, Diane was sensibly able to point out the pitfalls and benefits of testing. Moreover, she pointed out that testing and standards are important in many aspects of life. I believe it was a well written, well supported and practical writing.
Matt Pepin
5/17/07
Week 1 Assignment
A Proposal to Abolish Grading
Goodman makes the assumption that if half a dozen of the prestigious universities abolished grading, other educational institutions would follow suit. Part of the irony is that the schools he names as prestigious require some of the most rigorous standards for high grades and SAT scores in order to be considered for acceptance. He further states that he "thinks" the majority of professors agree with his assessment and uses his collection of essays, Examining in Harvard College, as proof that these essays prove the consensus of professors agree. Goodman fails to give any concrete data, and as far as the reader is concerned, these essays could just as easily deal with qualities that are very difficult or impossible to test; qualities such as integrity, compassion, honesty, morality, valor, and etc.
Without testing, how does the school know that the student is ready for the next level of course they will need to take. If one doesn't show that they are able to pass General Chemistry I and II, how will they be able to grasp Organic or Physical Chemistry. Is it fair to the student, the reputation of the school, or the financers of the education not to have a barometer of how a student is doing in comparison to others?
Goodman purports that grading stifles growth and mastery of a trade that would be more honorably served and nurtured by proving to their guild of peers what their capabilities were. He fails to mention the journey of learning from others that had to be met before they could argue their case or prove themselves for their final acceptance. Did everyone who endeavored to become accepted in their field succeed, and of those who did, were they not also criticized as well as praised by their teachers along the way. Wasn't there also competition, or as Goodman puts it, "climbing on his friend's neck", as part of the process of success and failure?
The author defends laziness, risk of failing, being downgraded, and conceit that one is already perfect to justify not being able to make the grade, which in this case is high marks on examinations. His defense that a student might be book-tired, the work doesn't suit them at this time, this school or this subject doesn't interest them and thus a waste of time and possibly a waste of life is the result, has no merit. If the student isn't in college to apply themselves, grades are a good way of reflecting this and maybe the student doesn't belong in higher education anyway. The world is becoming smaller and more competitive every day. People are graded not only in school, but evaluated and graded on their performance in their jobs. Excuses doesn't get one far in a career, performance that can be measured does.
I do not grant the author's assumptions. He fails to mention the responsibility gained from competition in grading and omits the effort needed to succeed. I do not know of any student that enjoys testing and the apprehension of what grade they will receive. Many of the classes we take we feel are not necessary to our majors but most of us feel that some standard or benchmark is necessary to make a degree meaningful.
Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed
Gardner assumes that SAT exams should not have a time limit. Through the examples that he gives, an explicit case can be made for allowing individuals with disabilities more time. If SAT's are to remain timed, there are valid reasons where time extensions or other allowances would be suitable. But this also opens the floodgates to an array of disorders real or imagined that could become so numerous as to make having a timed SAT be meaningless for a large proportion of test-takers.
I believe he opens himself to criticism by stating that eliminating the timed component would emphasize that background knowledge, seriousness of purpose and effort, instead of speed are essentials of good scholarship. The ability to answer questions in a timely manner on an SAT indicates that the student is more proficient and familiar with the subject matter, which is the purpose of the SAT.
In the last paragraph Gardner advocates allowing students to bring along dictionaries and have access to the WEB as this would more accurately duplicate actual working conditions. Without a time limit, and the use of the WEB and a dictionary, I believe the concept of the SAT is nullified. I think he would have a stronger case by advocating everyone should have an equal chance for an education and acceptance at the school of their choice.
Letters of Response to Howard Gardner
-Thomas Johnson Jr.
Mr. Johnson speculates that having exacting time constraints for SAT's is rational because it tests the student's ability to perform well under pressure. Though he offers no data for proof I agree with his assumption. College is a path that puts a student under deadlines and pressure. Real life jobs mirror these conditions and I believe Mr. Johnson's subjective assumption has merit.
-Garver Moore
Mr. Moore's last line is the best i have read in the entire chapter. The SAT test is just that- a test, not something to make someone feel good. Standardization coupled with a time frame is a better indicator of a person's aptitude than a person who is allowed unlimited time, a dictionary, laptop and a text book. He makes a valid claim in supporting a test in which conditions are held constant so that only a student's brain is responsible for his or her score. I would have never had to study for my driver's test if I'd been allowed the manual and a laptop. The evidence is implicit, and the whole concept is just common sense.
-Arnie Lichten
Arnie is quick and to the point. Her assumption is welcome to the real world where pressures and deadlines are reality. Her evidence is evident, we have all had deadlines that we'd rather had been able to put off but reality paid us a visit.
-Janet Rudolph
I believe Janet makes exceptions for professions that have the liberty of being done when they are done. Writers and artists are great professions if one can make a living at it. If they can't work quickly or balance a check book, not much harm is caused. Pilots, brain surgeons, corporate managers, and computer programmers to name a few, work under different pressures and deadlines. Her assumption is faulty in that it belittles those who work under pressures and deadlines and she included a tiny portion of society. For me, her argument was not persuasive and was annoying. I agree with her assumption that we humans do not fit into standardized boxes but parameters and standards are necessary for life, school, and an occupation.
In Defense of Testing- Diane Ravitch
Diane's assumptions on testing are so explicit as to invite the implicit about the importance of testing. She points out that though no one likes being tested, tests and standards are a necessary fact of life for our own protection and for constructive use. Concerning education, she makes a wonderful statement about testing. "...tests should be used to improve education, not ration it. Every child should have access to a high-quality education."
I believe most critics would agree with her assumptions. Her subject matter is engaging and provide solid ideas on what tests should entail and how they should be used. She points out that the testers should be tested to make sure they are qualified and know their subject matter well so they are capable of teaching young children.
Contrary to Paul Goodman's article, Diane was sensibly able to point out the pitfalls and benefits of testing. Moreover, she pointed out that testing and standards are important in many aspects of life. I believe it was a well written, well supported and practical writing.
Testing, Good or Bad?
After reading the arguments written by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardener, and Diane Ravitch it is obvious that they all have valid ideas and show that the system in place now is far from perfect. Paul Goodman believes testing should be abolished completely at the college level. I do believe this is a far cry from the testing policies in place currently, in fact, it is a step back. I personally despise taking tests as much as the next person, but if it weren't for tests, how would we evaluate the knowledge we have gained? Tests give students something to strive towards. If all classes were based on pass/fail we would be going through school working just hard enough to pass. Why try harder than the next person if it doesn't reflect in some way? As far as Howard Gardener is concerned, if I knew I had all the time in the world to finish my test I would second guess myself over and over again and it would more than likely hinder me rather than help me. In the last paragraph of Gardeners essay he argues that dictionaries and Internet should be available for testing just as they would be for individuals who are carrying out their work. I don't believe that when a doctor is in the midst of surgery he can run out and check the Internet or his medical dictionary if he encounters a problem! Any job I have ever worked at I have been tested on my skills. Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, and even Cosmetologists are tested regularly on their skills and knowledge as well as continually being taught new material. I strongly agree with many of the things that Ravitch says in her essay, especially when she states that, "Good testing should have a mix of essay, problem-solving, short-answer, and even some multiple-choice questions." Testing should be a way to assess a students knowledge and skill level, not a means to steer them away from learning what is important.
Testing Essential in Today's World
Brenda Porter
May 17, 2007
Throughout life we are judged on many different levels for almost everything we do from the time we are born. As infants we are judged on a growth scale by the doctor and our parents to see if we are growing and developing at the desired rate. After several years of being rated on a physical developmental scale, we then enter kindergarten and begin to be evaluated by our ability to learn and retain information. After constant testing and grading of some sort, it comes to no surprise that people begin to question what effects this assignment of level or grade from all these tests really have. The essays by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner, and Diane Ravitch raise issues with the problems we have in our society today based on testing and grading in the educational system. Although all three have valid points, I must agree with Diane Ravitch that even though there are flaws in our processes testing and grading are a necessary part of life.
First, Ravitch gives several examples on the very basics of why testing and grading are necessary. One of the most important is our professionals, especially in healthcare. I personally would not want to be on the operating table and questioning what the credentials are of the person holding the knife. I want to be assured they have devoted the time and acquired the skills necessary to hold my life in their hands and heal me. Those types of skills can only be measured by testing and requiring certain levels of excellence.
On the other hand, Paul Goodman says we should abolish grading altogether once our children reach college. In a perfect world with everyone having perfect integrity maybe this would work, but the reality is our world is far from perfect and integrity is in short supply. Another reason why testing is so vital even with all the flaws in our educational system. Goodman does have basis for stating that students today miss the true scope of the subject they are learning to pick and choose bits of information to retain in order to pass with a desired grade. In this point, I agree. We truly are becoming a fast food bank of knowledge.
Next, there is the issue of time, which is brought up in the essay by Howard Gardner. Gardner’s view that standardized times need to be adjusted accordingly. Just as life is not concrete then we must bend on some occasions. He states that some students are qualified, but they do not test well. I can concur with this point, as I have had this problem myself from time to time taking test. I knew the information, but nerves and anxiety over time got in the way of expressing a true representation of the knowledge I had. So indeed, there is more to consider that just keeping true to standardization of times, but there must be some limits. True most of us don’t go through life using timed reading comprehension or speed math, but we do live in a world that requires we complete things in a timely manner.
Our society is fast paced and gaining yearly in compacting everything from communication to education. Even our Internet class is an example of that. Overall the true quality of education in some areas is suffering. Regardless we must keep testing and grading our students to have some basis of what knowledge they have at a given point in study, even if it isn’t a complete representation.
May 17, 2007
Throughout life we are judged on many different levels for almost everything we do from the time we are born. As infants we are judged on a growth scale by the doctor and our parents to see if we are growing and developing at the desired rate. After several years of being rated on a physical developmental scale, we then enter kindergarten and begin to be evaluated by our ability to learn and retain information. After constant testing and grading of some sort, it comes to no surprise that people begin to question what effects this assignment of level or grade from all these tests really have. The essays by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardner, and Diane Ravitch raise issues with the problems we have in our society today based on testing and grading in the educational system. Although all three have valid points, I must agree with Diane Ravitch that even though there are flaws in our processes testing and grading are a necessary part of life.
First, Ravitch gives several examples on the very basics of why testing and grading are necessary. One of the most important is our professionals, especially in healthcare. I personally would not want to be on the operating table and questioning what the credentials are of the person holding the knife. I want to be assured they have devoted the time and acquired the skills necessary to hold my life in their hands and heal me. Those types of skills can only be measured by testing and requiring certain levels of excellence.
On the other hand, Paul Goodman says we should abolish grading altogether once our children reach college. In a perfect world with everyone having perfect integrity maybe this would work, but the reality is our world is far from perfect and integrity is in short supply. Another reason why testing is so vital even with all the flaws in our educational system. Goodman does have basis for stating that students today miss the true scope of the subject they are learning to pick and choose bits of information to retain in order to pass with a desired grade. In this point, I agree. We truly are becoming a fast food bank of knowledge.
Next, there is the issue of time, which is brought up in the essay by Howard Gardner. Gardner’s view that standardized times need to be adjusted accordingly. Just as life is not concrete then we must bend on some occasions. He states that some students are qualified, but they do not test well. I can concur with this point, as I have had this problem myself from time to time taking test. I knew the information, but nerves and anxiety over time got in the way of expressing a true representation of the knowledge I had. So indeed, there is more to consider that just keeping true to standardization of times, but there must be some limits. True most of us don’t go through life using timed reading comprehension or speed math, but we do live in a world that requires we complete things in a timely manner.
Our society is fast paced and gaining yearly in compacting everything from communication to education. Even our Internet class is an example of that. Overall the true quality of education in some areas is suffering. Regardless we must keep testing and grading our students to have some basis of what knowledge they have at a given point in study, even if it isn’t a complete representation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Testing and Grades; Purpose?
Matthew Smith
May 16th, 2007
Paul Goodman raises some good thought and questions with grades. I must agree way to much emphasis is put on the grade, but this is a problem that begins way before college and Mr. Goodman fails to recognize this in his writing. A reduction in competitive grading needs to begin at the elementary level. young students have it ingrained in their head so early that only A's and B's are acceptable. Go to your local kid's pizza place or arcade; what grades do they give the highest amount of tokens for? As parent's (yes, I'm guilty) we reward our kids for A's and B's at the earliest ages. You just can't expect competitive grading to suddenly end at the college level, as with many things, the earlier you begin the higher the success
I do have to say that I believe in timed SAT tests. You have to be able to hold every student to the same standard. I will say that the overall given time of the SAT could use an overhaul. Mr. Gardner fails to recognize that yes, while there are few tasks in life that depend on your ability to read or do mathematics quickly; being able to work under a deadline is something that is going to be expected of anyone entering any job field. Mr.Gardner makes the suggestion that it would be of benefit for students to have access to dictionaries and the Internet; this I can't disagree with enough. If a student has access to the Web while taking a history exam, where is the motivation to learn? How are you going to measure that student's base of knowledge?
Diane Ravitch believes that pretty much all test serve a purpose. I couldn't AGREE with her more. Testing is a necessity of our society and culture. From ensuring that students are competent to advance to the next grade level to making sure our Doctor's are competent. I do believe that we can examine the types of testing for certain academic material and move more away from multiple choice and true/false to short answer/essay type tests. The essay format for testing allows for more individuality with an answer, while still being able to measure their knowledge of the material.
I think it's important to keep in mind that testing and grading are two very different area's. While restructuring of both is very thought provoking, to completely eliminate either one would prove more damaging then beneficial.
May 16th, 2007
Paul Goodman raises some good thought and questions with grades. I must agree way to much emphasis is put on the grade, but this is a problem that begins way before college and Mr. Goodman fails to recognize this in his writing. A reduction in competitive grading needs to begin at the elementary level. young students have it ingrained in their head so early that only A's and B's are acceptable. Go to your local kid's pizza place or arcade; what grades do they give the highest amount of tokens for? As parent's (yes, I'm guilty) we reward our kids for A's and B's at the earliest ages. You just can't expect competitive grading to suddenly end at the college level, as with many things, the earlier you begin the higher the success
I do have to say that I believe in timed SAT tests. You have to be able to hold every student to the same standard. I will say that the overall given time of the SAT could use an overhaul. Mr. Gardner fails to recognize that yes, while there are few tasks in life that depend on your ability to read or do mathematics quickly; being able to work under a deadline is something that is going to be expected of anyone entering any job field. Mr.Gardner makes the suggestion that it would be of benefit for students to have access to dictionaries and the Internet; this I can't disagree with enough. If a student has access to the Web while taking a history exam, where is the motivation to learn? How are you going to measure that student's base of knowledge?
Diane Ravitch believes that pretty much all test serve a purpose. I couldn't AGREE with her more. Testing is a necessity of our society and culture. From ensuring that students are competent to advance to the next grade level to making sure our Doctor's are competent. I do believe that we can examine the types of testing for certain academic material and move more away from multiple choice and true/false to short answer/essay type tests. The essay format for testing allows for more individuality with an answer, while still being able to measure their knowledge of the material.
I think it's important to keep in mind that testing and grading are two very different area's. While restructuring of both is very thought provoking, to completely eliminate either one would prove more damaging then beneficial.
Timed Tests? Not Actually a Bad Thing.
Mara Lindokken
16 May 2007
As someone who has recently gone through the college admissions process, including the standardized testing, I feel there is significant merit in these tests.
There is an argument to be made that the timing of them is arbitrary. Howard Gardner takes the position that everyone should be allowed to get his or her time extended in a timed test. He also states that few tasks in life require one to read passages or do math problems rapidly. Both are valid arguments, but I believe there is reason to find fault with these.
If everyone were allowed to have their time extended, who is to set the maximum amount of time they can extend it? One could say “reasonable,” but who defines reasonable? The times already in place are standard over many different tests. There is an arbitrary element to the time set (who determines what the standard time is?), but when you take away that and say, “take as much time as you need,” the number of things needing a subjective definition goes up greatly.
As to Gardner’s second qualm, it is true that those exact skills of reading passages and doing math problems rapidly are not normally used in everyday life. However, the general skill sets used by doing them are. Thing such as the ability to work quickly and work under pressure are important skills in many workplaces. Much of the standardized tests are not true knowledge tests, anyway—they test your ability to interpret data, rather than spew facts. Being able to apply general concepts in a given amount of time to a situation is, in fact, a rather important skill to have.
16 May 2007
As someone who has recently gone through the college admissions process, including the standardized testing, I feel there is significant merit in these tests.
There is an argument to be made that the timing of them is arbitrary. Howard Gardner takes the position that everyone should be allowed to get his or her time extended in a timed test. He also states that few tasks in life require one to read passages or do math problems rapidly. Both are valid arguments, but I believe there is reason to find fault with these.
If everyone were allowed to have their time extended, who is to set the maximum amount of time they can extend it? One could say “reasonable,” but who defines reasonable? The times already in place are standard over many different tests. There is an arbitrary element to the time set (who determines what the standard time is?), but when you take away that and say, “take as much time as you need,” the number of things needing a subjective definition goes up greatly.
As to Gardner’s second qualm, it is true that those exact skills of reading passages and doing math problems rapidly are not normally used in everyday life. However, the general skill sets used by doing them are. Thing such as the ability to work quickly and work under pressure are important skills in many workplaces. Much of the standardized tests are not true knowledge tests, anyway—they test your ability to interpret data, rather than spew facts. Being able to apply general concepts in a given amount of time to a situation is, in fact, a rather important skill to have.
Testing and Grading, a Response
Melanie E. Woldt
May 16, 2007
After reading Paul Goodman’s A Proposal to Abolish Grading, Howard Gardner’s Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed, and Diane Ravitch’s In Defense of Testing, I have come to the conclusion that all three of these essays have some very good points to them. The three essays all agree that the current method of determining a student’s position in school is flawed.
Paul Goodman proposes abolishing grading with the assumption that students will be ‘down-graded and punished’ due to their weaknesses. Goodman assumes that students will not study without the threat of grades. While abolishing grading has its merits, one cannot abolish grading at the university level first. In order to fully understand the effects of grading on an individual, grading has to be completely abolished as a child first enters into schooling. After thirteen years of schooling, fourteen or fifteen if you count preschool, a person is predisposed to the grading system and will not be as efficient if the grading were to be abolished at the university level.
Howard Gardner proposes abolishing time limits and adding other sources, such as the internet, to an exam. The purpose of an exam is to test a person on what he or she does or does not know. By allowing an individual a chance to use a dictionary or the internet, who is to say that the individual knows the work? A person needs to be able to finish an exam on his or her own. Many tests require a student to be done at a certain time. Testing should have a much longer time restriction. While having a time requirement forces an individual to learn to get things done in a timely manner, just as projects for work have a due date, it is important to give the individual the time to strategize and come up with a plan. The forty minutes a person has to finish the forty questions during the math ACT is NOT adequate time for an individual to fully solve the problems. Many people need to take the time to actually study the problem. Time restrictions do not allow a person to do that.
Diane Ravitch states that testing is a necessary evil. While no one enjoys taking the tests, the tests are there in order to assure that the person actually knows what they are doing. She also states that testing should not determine how much schooling a person is qualified for. People are tested then graded on the potential he or she presents based on the test results. The current method of testing an individual needs to be redone. All persons are entitled to the same degree of education. All children are entitled to equal opportunities.
Goodman, Gardner, and Ravitch present great ideas. There needs to be a middle ground. Testing and grading (if any) should be based on an individual’s efforts, not a group standard. Testing should have less time restrictions. Testing should be in place as a means to check that an individual knows what he or she is doing. There needs to be a collective effort that can effectively determine a student’s knowledge.
Response to testing
Katie Rupp
May 16, 2007
We were asked to read three different works by three different authors. these authors have three different opinions on tests in schools. Some of the ideas seem extreme, but they all have valid arguments t back up their ideas.
The first author, Paul Goodman, suggest that schools should abolish testing all together. He argues that students will actually do better when they are not being "punished" and shown their "weaknesses." I do not agree with Goodman. If there were no tests than how would we know who is really learning. Personally, I know that if given the chance, i would rather not study for a big exam.
The second author, Howard Gardner suggests that we should have tests, but they should not be timed. He makes some valid points about the pressure that is on students when time is limited. I happen to agree with Gardner. I think students should have as much time as needed to complete an exam. We are all different and we all take tests differently. I have never had a problem with anxiety and tests, but on the other hand, my sister has. She used to dread taking tests. She is very smart, but never did well on tests. She knew the material, but felt flustered and hurried by the time constraints.
Gardner also goes on to say that students should be able to leave and come back, use dictionaries, and the Internet. I do not agree with that. If a student has sufficiently studied and has as much time as needed, that person should not need any other means of help.
The third author is Diane Ravitch, she defends testing. She believes that the tests should include essays, problem solving, short answers, and multiple choice. She believes that if testing is done away with that more children will, "fall through the cracks" of our education system. I think that would happen as well. I also agree when Ravitch said, "Tests should be used to improve education, not ration it."
In some ways i agree with all three authors, there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Where a student can take a test with as little pressure as possible and yet still be able to measure their intelligence.
May 16, 2007
We were asked to read three different works by three different authors. these authors have three different opinions on tests in schools. Some of the ideas seem extreme, but they all have valid arguments t back up their ideas.
The first author, Paul Goodman, suggest that schools should abolish testing all together. He argues that students will actually do better when they are not being "punished" and shown their "weaknesses." I do not agree with Goodman. If there were no tests than how would we know who is really learning. Personally, I know that if given the chance, i would rather not study for a big exam.
The second author, Howard Gardner suggests that we should have tests, but they should not be timed. He makes some valid points about the pressure that is on students when time is limited. I happen to agree with Gardner. I think students should have as much time as needed to complete an exam. We are all different and we all take tests differently. I have never had a problem with anxiety and tests, but on the other hand, my sister has. She used to dread taking tests. She is very smart, but never did well on tests. She knew the material, but felt flustered and hurried by the time constraints.
Gardner also goes on to say that students should be able to leave and come back, use dictionaries, and the Internet. I do not agree with that. If a student has sufficiently studied and has as much time as needed, that person should not need any other means of help.
The third author is Diane Ravitch, she defends testing. She believes that the tests should include essays, problem solving, short answers, and multiple choice. She believes that if testing is done away with that more children will, "fall through the cracks" of our education system. I think that would happen as well. I also agree when Ravitch said, "Tests should be used to improve education, not ration it."
In some ways i agree with all three authors, there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Where a student can take a test with as little pressure as possible and yet still be able to measure their intelligence.
Grading Students
When discussing grading, the authors in our readings were actually discussing testing. I believe that there is a substantial difference between a test grade and a grade that reflects the student's mastery of the material. Paul Goodman advocates the abolition of high pressure tests, Howard Gardner wants to reduce the pressures of the SAT exam and Diane Ravitch defends testing in general, but wants to change the formats. I see a connecting theme, all the authors believe that our current system is flawed, they only differ on how to fix it. My solution to the test based grading system is to maintain the traditional grading scale, but change how the students earn those grades.
I agree with Howard Garndner that we must not measure a particular student's speed or test taking skill. We must have alternative means of assessing the student's knowledge. I believe that the student is best measured when the course culminates with an application of the skills or knowledge learned, not in a high pressure test. Testing encourages a blind regurgitation of facts and discourages independent curiosity. Who would spend extra time studying an interesting aspect of a course when they knew it would not be on the test?
Traditionally, the maths and sciences have used high pressure tests to assess their students understanding while the literature and history classes have used culminating papers and projects in which the students apply the core concepts learned in that class. I believe that all courses would be better able to assess true mastery of the material through in depth projects. Science classes would be centered around Labs and science projects investigating the specific topics. Ravtich advocates math exams on which students’ show how they arrived at their answer and not blind guessing. Math classes would have tests that focused on the process leading to the correct answer and not how fast one could work through multiple choice problems.
Tests are a valuable tool for assessment, however there is too much reliance on speed based multiple choice exams. These exams do not demonstrate the student's ability beyond their test taking skills. I think we should restructure the tests to place emphasis on how the student arrives at the correct answer, and restructure the courses to place far less importance on tests and much more on the application of the core concepts learned in the class.
I agree with Howard Garndner that we must not measure a particular student's speed or test taking skill. We must have alternative means of assessing the student's knowledge. I believe that the student is best measured when the course culminates with an application of the skills or knowledge learned, not in a high pressure test. Testing encourages a blind regurgitation of facts and discourages independent curiosity. Who would spend extra time studying an interesting aspect of a course when they knew it would not be on the test?
Traditionally, the maths and sciences have used high pressure tests to assess their students understanding while the literature and history classes have used culminating papers and projects in which the students apply the core concepts learned in that class. I believe that all courses would be better able to assess true mastery of the material through in depth projects. Science classes would be centered around Labs and science projects investigating the specific topics. Ravtich advocates math exams on which students’ show how they arrived at their answer and not blind guessing. Math classes would have tests that focused on the process leading to the correct answer and not how fast one could work through multiple choice problems.
Tests are a valuable tool for assessment, however there is too much reliance on speed based multiple choice exams. These exams do not demonstrate the student's ability beyond their test taking skills. I think we should restructure the tests to place emphasis on how the student arrives at the correct answer, and restructure the courses to place far less importance on tests and much more on the application of the core concepts learned in the class.
Welcome! I am glad you made it here.
This is the course blog for Composition II. You will post your short responses here, and your classmates can respond to you. We will be discussing issues that you may feel strongly about. Hence, do remember that when you write a short response, you are writing for an audience; and when you respond, you are responding to an actual person who has written a short essay. So it is important that short responses (blogs) are respectful, informed, and thoughtful, rising above the level of rants. As well, they should be well-written, organized, and clear--this is a writing class. That means that you should pay close attention to mechanics (punctuation, spelling, and so forth), usage, and grammar. I don't expect blog posts to be perfect, but do try (i.e. this is not the place for internet slang or lazy writing that has no capitals and no punctuation). Also, peer critiques should be equally respectful, informed, and thoughtful. You are definitely free to agree or disagree, just be sure to do so in a professional manner.
Please view this as class discussion. Read blogs posted by your classmates and do respond. It is much more satisfying to write when there is an expectation of a response. Writing is, above all else, communication.
This is the course blog for Composition II. You will post your short responses here, and your classmates can respond to you. We will be discussing issues that you may feel strongly about. Hence, do remember that when you write a short response, you are writing for an audience; and when you respond, you are responding to an actual person who has written a short essay. So it is important that short responses (blogs) are respectful, informed, and thoughtful, rising above the level of rants. As well, they should be well-written, organized, and clear--this is a writing class. That means that you should pay close attention to mechanics (punctuation, spelling, and so forth), usage, and grammar. I don't expect blog posts to be perfect, but do try (i.e. this is not the place for internet slang or lazy writing that has no capitals and no punctuation). Also, peer critiques should be equally respectful, informed, and thoughtful. You are definitely free to agree or disagree, just be sure to do so in a professional manner.
Please view this as class discussion. Read blogs posted by your classmates and do respond. It is much more satisfying to write when there is an expectation of a response. Writing is, above all else, communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)