Do kids who are tested frequently learn more than kids who aren't?
Comment: yeh, i do agree... exams are test of your memorization not of your potential...
total torture and reason of stress for students
Comment: All testing can be helpful if done correctly. For example, some information you learn you must memorize (times table, basic spelling words, important dates in history) and those tests are tests of knowledge and comprehension. Other tests are tests of application and analysis, such as solving math problems or categorizing different animal groups. Harder tests, or harder questions, are those that test systhesis and evaluation, which is a higher level of thinking. These questions rely on the fact that children have previous knowledge (hence have done some previous memorization - no way around that in this world) and will ask children to hypothesize, formulate, compare and contrast or defend their opinion. This is "Bloom's taxonomy" and I learned it in a fabulous teaching course while earning my credential. I practiced these steps in my everyday teaching and told the children what step we were on while we were learning. Any GOOD teacher can and should create their tests to include as many of those steps as possible as the age group of the children allows (younger children are tested more heavily in steps 1-3 as their brains are still developing the abilities to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, but even so, the occasional question can be included). Well designed tests, based on well designed lessons, can and do help you retain relevant information for life.
Comment: But did they test multiply-choice testing? I believe that this form allows for retrieval of information a way too easy. All you need is just to see the correct answer once and then you would recognize it among four - no study necessary, no benefits.
Comment: Eric_scud is incorrect in his assumption that testing cannot measure the ability to learn, synthesize information, and correlate events. In medical school, we had what we lovingly called 2 and 3 neuron questions in addition to 1 neuron pure memorization questions. The ability to answer these 2 or 3 neuron questions separated the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak. They provided the test taker with a kernal of information then required them to draw on everything else they'd memorized to get the correct answer. For example, the first neuron would deduce which tissue a slide was showing, a second neuron would supply information on physiology or pathology to the third neuron that would then give the answer actually required on the bubble sheet. This kind of testing requires much more creativity and crafting than standard multiple-choice questions but requires a student to think as much as if answering short-essay questions (which can also be used to assess critical thinking skills but don't lend themselves to easy grading.
Comment: I don't agree w/ your learning Swahili example. It is very different if one actually "uses" what they've learned rather just learning it for a test. If you don't understand the purpose or value in what you're learning, then you are much more likely to forget. If your only purpose to learning something is your teacher wants you to or because they'll be a test, you will soon forget after the test!
Comment: I think the biggest issue with tyranical testing, is the fact it encourages memorization. While fine and good for daily tasks, as a learning mechanism it leaves alot to be desired. I memorized alot in school, but I find on a daily basis the skills of critcal thinking, problem solving, and even classical scientific method serve me best in most every endeavor. What testing fails to measure is the ability to learn, the synthesis of information, and the correlation of events.
Comment: Hmm, interesting theory. But the experiment limited results to short-term memory retention. Isn't testing just "practicing," at that point? I would be very interested in finding out whether these people remembered their Swahili words a year or ten later, without continued need or use for the information. I doubt it.
I posit that practice (particularly under duress) helps you retain information in the short-term, but once it's no longer practiced or tested, it falls into memory's wastebin.
How many adults can retrieve all the facts they stuffed into us from grade school, unless they're still relevant and pertinent to us today? Very, very few of us. But those that are relevant (say, your times tables -- they never did much for me, so it's in the back-forty of my mind) we retain. (and why do testing and homework advocates always bring up times tables? You'd think children didn't learn anything else in elementary school)
And therein lies the problem with testing, testing, testing. No meaningful long-term learning comes from it without relevance. It just makes parents, teachers and administrators happy.
Comment: my kids will not be happy about this at all. ;)
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.
Sponsored by
|
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
