I found the section of Chapter 5 dealing with large-scale assessments to be particularly interesting. I can see the value in terms of determining accountability for the use of the curriculum, but teaching and learning involves so much more. In particular, the influences of social, economic, class, cultural, family, biological, and psychological contexts. In other words, how “raw scores ignore how these and other factors influence how students do” in terms of one assessment (p.144).
Just thinking back to when I wrote one exam in particular last year, there were numerous factors at work, besides how well my instructor taught me and how much I studied. I was nearly late for the exam (psychological stress) and therefore skipped breakfast (biological; energy and nutrition), as well as being not nearly as prepared as I could have been due to a family situation at home (family). Did I do as well as I had hoped? No, but I was at least comforted by the fact that I was not being judged solely by the outcome of this one exam. For the capabilities of children, their teachers, and their administrators to be evaluated by the outcome of one snapshot in time seems foolish.
To see “how closely the curriculum is being followed” is important, but cannot be the sole method to evaluate learning or the effectiveness of teaching either (p.142). Also, it is almost impossible to measure the effects of the “hidden curriculum” on a single large-scale assessment as well. While a greater range of perspectives are being incorporated into Canadian curricula, the dominant culture is still the foundation upon which the curriculum is built (p.146).
Discussion question: What methods or steps would you take as a teacher in order to ensure that the curriculum is being followed, but in a way that expands the learning experience beyond "teaching to the test"?
No comments:
Post a Comment