I hate tests. I mean those events where you are told to memorize a lot of information over a certain time period in order to regurgitate it back onto a piece of paper so the teacher/professor can learn if you are able to regurgitate it back onto a piece of paper. I know people that can’t think themselves out of a wet paper bag that can ace one of these test. I know others who are genius-in-waiting who do not do well on test at all (the God-forsaken, money-making GRE for example).
I think educational paradigms need to be changed (e.g., here). This last week I went with my wife to a lecture by Stan Karp of Rethinking Schools. He was as fascinating as he was intelligent. In essence, our educational “system” is structured toward a certain type of learner in a certain type of environment. It is not good for those who do well as “divergent thinkers” (see video below). It is not good for those who do not want their life to be basically centered around the machine called “industrialization”. It is good for those who do well on a conveyor belt. It is good for those who do well at conforming.
That being said, lest I wax on without elegance, I wanted to share this video made by RSA adapted from a similar talk given by Sir Ken Robinson, a “world-renown educational and creativity expert” (HT). It is 11 min, 40 sec long so if you have the attention span, and you can watch it, and then you can leave your thoughts in a comment box, it would be great to hear your perspective:
By the way, I want to thank all my professors who have adapted a pedagogy that allows me to (1) do research; (2) write papers and essays rather than regurgitate info back onto a piece of paper (language professors are excluded because I don’t know if there is any way to avoid tests for biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek); (3) learn in groups through conversation, (4) learn alone if needed. You have saved me from a broken system. I wish there were more of you in this world.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
There was an interesting article in last week’s paper about the entire field of neuro-education. It looked at research that suggests that students who study for a test/quiz are more likely to be able to retrieve the information, than those who study without having to take a test. Basically, these neuro researchers are finding that test-taking is more than just “regurgitating”. The problem is that in most schools, testing has a been a way of assessing a student’s ability, rather than a tool to help them learn.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/tests-get-high-marks-as-a-learning-tool/article1824878/?service=mobile
That being said, I’m glad that in my graduate program there are no exams (other than Greek and Hebrew). On the other hand, I wonder how much more “facts” about church history I would remember if I studied as if I was being quizzed on it. I find myself forgetting the little details, and remembering only broad themes and movements.
@AMM: I think that is fine if I am testing for math or science. Raw data in; raw data out. But being able to recall what one is told to recall for the sake of being able to recall it is where I find it regurgitating.
For instance, even if we could spit back the small details from church history this tells us part of “learning” church history is simply memorizing what the professor found to be worth mentioning and then parroting it back to her. I think this is 2-D learning at best.
Brian, if you will send me your email address I have a paper by Dr. Scott Sunquist titled “The Dangers of the Unconverted Seminary.” Scott is a prof at Pittsburg Seminary and the paper is well worth the read. Clayton
@Clayton: it is brianleport@gmail.com . Thanks!
Thanks for posting this video! I, too, think standardized testing and the current model of education helps some and hurts others. What I found particularly interesting about the video was that divergent thinking decreases with age….fascinating and scary.
I don’t think that all testing is bad, however. Multiple choice, fill in the blank, etc. are pretty much useless (if you have to bait the student, do they really know it?). One of my professors tests simply by handing out blank sheets of paper and tells students to explain some event/circumstance like, “Discuss possible conditions that led to the formation of canon.” Or something like that.
It is true that this is “regurgitated” information in a way, but it has been helpful to me because this is the closest thing to the student teaching the information aside from actually teaching it. Knowing a subject well enough to teach it indicates learning (at least to me).
This has given me a lot to consider especially since my wife and I are expected a baby! This makes me even more fearful of public education. Thanks again for posting.
@Matthew: I hope it will be a few years before I have children because I need to think about how I want to see them educated. I hope the next several years will show the emergence of some new, alternative paradigms and that the State will let it happen!
Congratulations on the soon coming baby!
The video was amazing and gave lots of food for thought. Thanks for sharing.
@George: You’re welcome.
Clayton; could you give me a copy of that paper also? craig.benno@live.com.au
Henry Ford once said about a quiz star; “He would only pay him to work for him the amount it would cost him a set of encyclopaedias.” He wanted people who could learn from the facts; not just know the facts.
I believe that true education will give someone the tools to learn for themselves and therefore to say you are giving someone an education; it must be tailored for how that person learns… unless you are teaching that person a method in how they don’t learn? ….. which is what this present speaks of.
Towards the end he makes a great point about the loss of the ability for divergent thinking. I like what this professor says about a method of teaching his students: he will give them the option not to do assignment work if they take part in a debating team… http://betweenthetimes.com/2010/10/07/when-writing-about-those-with-whom-you-disagree/
@Craig: It kind of reminds me of the saying, “Fish for someone and you feed them for a day; teach them to fish and you feed them for a life time.” Overused saying; valuable principle.
Wonderful video and presentation, thanks for sharing!
As someone who was raised in *Texas* public schools, attended a public University, study at Seminary, have taught in a public school and currently teach in a Classical Christian school, here are a few quick thoughts (I plan to share this on my site with more complete comments soon):
1. From my experience, the standardized test is one of the largest obstacles to new ways of learning, and more specifically to the types of environments Karp mentions in his lecture. While in the Dallas public schools I was very fortunate to teach a subject that was not on the standardized test for the given grade, and was afforded the freedom to teach and assess relatively free from “test prep.” I know all to well, however, that those who are teaching a subject that is on the standardized test are much too busy teaching test-taking methods and following this “assembly line” model Karp refers to. If I were to go back into teaching in a public school, I would only do so within a subject that is not tested. I have much respect for those teachers who sympathize with my and still teach those highly tested areas, but there is no way that could be me.
2. I hinted at this in the first point, but a large part of the solution to this problem is training teachers to teach this way regardless of the system they are in. I know that is easier for some, and quite difficult for others. But it is by no means impossible to implement many of these wonderful ideas while teaching inside of the current broken system.
3. I am very thankful to be teaching in a school that allows me to follow this model well. I will say that as a teacher, it is much more work to successfully plan, manage and assess a group-think project than it is to pass out a work sheet. Again, I think much of the debate over educational systems has to come back to training teachers that are not only qualified in their subjects, but also highly concerned with pedagogy.
Again, thanks for sharing!
@Jon: In some sense it is an act of necessary subversion for teachers to break the “learn to test” model. I appreciate those, like you, who are doing this. We need to realize learning is a very diverse thing.
I’ve been privileged to travel around the world a lot during my short life, and I believe never having to go through one formal system of education actually helped my “creative genius” thrive. So when I worked as a junior high teacher a few years ago, I made it a point to engage with the material as much as possible, so as to come up with original lessons the kids could be enthusiastic about. And they were, plus they were encouraged to develop as people, beyond the classroom.
Unfortunately, the administration felt such lessons weren’t going to help them pass their standardized tests, so I got bumped to teaching nursery. Kids at that age need creative teaching probably the most, for obvious reasons. Besides, no one can complain about a 4yr old’s attention span. It’s too bad the older they get, the less the aims of education focus on development and nurturing.
@Ishta: That is disappointing. I think the only way we can see a true paradigm shift is if teachers unite with a vision for a better education. If teachers refuse to take classes from other teachers in this scenario we may see a move toward a more human education. I am skeptical, but hopeful.
Brian,
I didn’t watch the video, but I read the post; and I just wanted to say that I agree with you! 🙂
Clayton,
Could you also send that paper to me: jam.tuck@gmail.com
Thanks!
James Tucker
Clayton,
Could you send a copy of the paper to me as well: jam.tuck@gmail.com
Thanks!