Arie Dirkzwager (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 09 Nov 2000 10:47:13 +0000
At 14:01 8-11-00 -0800, Kathleen Stilwell wrote:
> From my study of the Sudbury model it seems that
>mandatory testing of any child could not be a part of
>the Sudbury model.
Multiple Evaluation is in it's essence a method of self-assessment
and this in my opinion fits quite well in the Sudbury model.
>No matter how clever a test is designed to be, unless
>a child were to choose the test for self-evaluation it
>would have no value at all.
>Within the education system tests are used to label,
>categorize, and sometimes to guide and to mold a
>child's future. Unless a child asks for such
>labelling, categorizing, guiding and molding (and I've
>never met a child who would), then our education
>system is assuming a power it has no right to.
>Kathleen Stilwell, Las Vegas, NV
>--- Marko Koskinen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I agree. One of my fellow students is doing her
> > graduate research about
> > her children. She is repeating the test by Piaget,
> > but doing the test
> > using situations and materials that are common to
> > her children so that
> > the children really understand what's going on and
> > they really have a
> > problem that they can relate to. When Piaget did his
> > tests they were
> > kind of random and didn't nescessarily have anything
> > to do with the
> > world view of the child, so the children really
> > couldn't understand the
> > problems and didn't pass the tests. But my fellow
> > student has come to a
> > conclusion that the tests really aren't even very
> > hard problems for her
> > kids when they are set in a common situation and
> > have meaning to the
> > children.
> > So I could assume that the key issue here is
> > motivation. If the problem
> > is really important to you and you really want to
> > solve it, you use much
> > more attention and effort in solving it, thus the
> > probablility to pass a
> > test with "real" problems becomes much more probable
> > than solving
> > "hypothetical" problems. This means that the "school
> > test" actually have
> > no value at all, because they test only "school
> > survival", not real life
> > skills and "global knowledge".
> > Also there is a lot of research in the field of
> > transfer, meaning how
> > the learner can use the things learned in a new
> > situation, stating that
> > learning is very much situated, and there is great
> > difficulty in
> > transfering the knowledge in totally different kinds
> > of environment.
> > There is also great difficulty in making instruction
> > into transferable
> > knowledge.
> > This again means that if you learn something at
> > school and know it in
> > the test, it is very likely that you have no means
> > of using that
> > knowledge in real life situations, thus making the
> > test results totally
> > useless and meaningless.
> > There is much discussion about these issues in
> > Sudbury literature and
> > there is also a lot of research supporting the
> > assumptions that are made
> > in the literature.
> > Marko Koskinen
> > Finland
> > > the main problem is with the tests themselves.
> > They don't measure real
> > > knowledge. Real command of knowledge only shows
> > itself in the presence of a
> > > true problem. A true problem is not one in which
> > the answer is known and must
> > > be picked from a pile (That is just an exercise),
> > but one in which the answer
> > > doesn't yet exist and must be discovered or
> > created. You may eliminate guessing
> > > from computer-graded standardized tests, but the
> > only way you can measure true
> > > knowledge is by how a person uses the knowns to
> > find the unknowns. And thus the
> > > unknowns must be truly unknown to the person, and
> > not just one of a pile of
> > > possibles.
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
Educational Instrumentation Technology,
Computers in Education.
1402 AE Bussum,
web site featuring educational testing methods:
When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977).
Accept that some days you are the statue, and some days you are the bird.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Nov 09 2000 - 19:57:28 EST