Export thread

test scores =/= student achievement

#1



Chibibar

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/04/politics/main5525842.shtml

I have to disagree with Obama here. The way I understand is that Obama believes test score = student achievement?

The problem is that student don't learn anything. Teachers will go back to "teach the test" instead of lesson plans. I think the program "left no student behind" hurt many faculty here. working with many faculty in my job, I hear a lot of gripe on this one.

It is not easy trying to teach a lesson plan in a limited time when you have TACT Test that determine if you pass or fail.

The old school of teaching "Learn and git" (one of my teacher uses that term) doesn't work. Retention is low with that method. Lesson should include participation and understanding not just straight lecture.


#2



Chazwozel

Chibibar said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/04/politics/main5525842.shtml

I have to disagree with Obama here. The way I understand is that Obama believes test score = student achievement?

The problem is that student don't learn anything. Teachers will go back to \"teach the test\" instead of lesson plans. I think the program \"left no student behind\" hurt many faculty here. working with many faculty in my job, I hear a lot of gripe on this one.

It is not easy trying to teach a lesson plan in a limited time when you have TACT Test that determine if you pass or fail.

The old school of teaching \"Learn and git\" (one of my teacher uses that term) doesn't work. Retention is low with that method. Lesson should include participation and understanding not just straight lecture.
Click to expand...
The problem teachers and administrations had with 'no child left behind' was that in order to get funded for subsequent years, the standardized test scores had to also increase. While this sucks for a lot of teachers/staff (because of obvious reasons with charter schools), it's the only true method the government has to dish out funds. How else are you going to figure out what school to give money to and promote educational advancement? It did what it was supposed to do, reward those institutions that did improve test scores. The big flaw is that the ones that failed to get funds are still in the slumps. Obama is against lifting the ban because doing so will introduce a mess of subjective measures for measuring school success. The best way still remains to be standardized testing.

Yes, individually one student may or may not be a good test taker, but these tests are averaging all the students in a charter/district for funds. If all your students are failing these tests it indicates a clear problem within that district.


#3

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I hate hearing teachers complain about teaching to the test. When a standardized test is put in place to see if your kids have mastery of your subject, you bloody well teach to the test. If not, you are not doing your job. The state decides what should be on the curriculum (through choosing the topics for the test) the teacher needs to follow through.

There needs to be more alignment with the curriculum, testing, teaching all the way through a state's department of education. The first time a student sees a test style, should not be on the test that decides if he is smart enough to be a 5th Grader. Unit/chapter tests should be using the same style of questions ought to be like the ones on the standardized tests.

Academic freedom is a nice luxury, but it leads to kids in different rooms getting vastly different educations.

/rant


#4



Rubicon

Honestly, the entire American school system needs an overhaul in it's teaching, and I'm American.

Our system is based on information retention. Who can memorize what during X years. I can honestly tell you I remember very little to nothing of my math, chemistry or civics courses from a decade ago in HS, let alone junior high or grade school. Most of that information doesn't get used on a day to day basis for the average person, and even back then you basically memorized information to past tests.

Very little goes into actually, teaching creative thought processes or incouraging creativity.

A great example is the debate system. Back in the day, people would debate a subject, toss back and forth counter arguments, maybe learn something or a see a view point from a different angle. These days, its who can say the most words in the shortest time, it literally has boiled down to who can regurgitate the most information in their time frame at the podium. Sure, they have to counter the other sides point of view, but since they have so much time to prepare in advance, they know the topics, they research every possible reaction to a subject. They literally carry around huge plastic tubs full of print outs and copies of absurd amounts of information, to just read and memorize. And they actually have a name for it, "banking", where you memorize and recall huge amounts of information plus speed reading, instead of coming up with an original idea yourself, or using creativity..

That same philosophy has spread to every day classes basically. You end up with kids who are forced to memorize material for tests/homework/courses but don't have a personality of their own academally. With more school systems cutting creative programs like Art, Music, etc it comes down to just memorization..


#5



Chibibar

sixpackshaker said:
I hate hearing teachers complain about teaching to the test. When a standardized test is put in place to see if your kids have mastery of your subject, you bloody well teach to the test. If not, you are not doing your job. The state decides what should be on the curriculum (through choosing the topics for the test) the teacher needs to follow through.

There needs to be more alignment with the curriculum, testing, teaching all the way through a state's department of education. The first time a student sees a test style, should not be on the test that decides if he is smart enough to be a 5th Grader. Unit/chapter tests should be using the same style of questions ought to be like the ones on the standardized tests.

Academic freedom is a nice luxury, but it leads to kids in different rooms getting vastly different educations.

/rant
Click to expand...
The problem is that these test doesn't really "teach" anything toward the student. I remember when I was "studying" for my test. I just remember the answer and method and do them. It is the same with my SAT. I just memorize a bunch of stuff and guess what? I totally forgot nearly 99% of them today (20+ years ago)


#6

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Buckle up, boys, we're movin' this 'ere thread to Politics!



#7

MindDetective

MindDetective

Even if you've forgotten material, it is still in there. It should take much less time to relearn it than it took to learn it in the first place. This is a prime demonstration of latent knowledge. Our educational system banks on instilling latent knowledge as an important end.

If you disagree, there is an alternative: A divided system that filters students towards university, technical training, or non-technical vocations. In other countries this division can begin quite early. The benefit is that teachers can target their curricula towards the paht the student is on. The negative is that people may get sorted towards low end careers early on.

I think it is unreasonable to expect the primary and secondary educational systems to prepare students for ANY path and NOT expect a lot of that knowledge to become latent.


#8

Cajungal

Cajungal

"Teaching to the test" isn't a problem if the modes of assessment are good. But the problem is that people aren't really learning. They're learning these little islands of information without putting any energy into making the connections that actually make a person WITH information in their head intelligent.

I don't know about standardized testing, but I've seen an improvement in testing strategies in some of the schools where I'm working. I can see teachers trying to give students the opportunity to think about what they're learning and not just know it well enough to belch it out. That's something.


#9

fade

fade

Well. People complain a lot that test scores don't measure achievement. But I get them after they've tested. And I can tell you based on many, many students at several universities now, there actually is a strong correlation between test scores and aptitude. I can say that there have been a good number of exceptions, but overall, the exceptions form a small minority. And even there, the exceptions usually run one way. There are students with high aptitude that test low, but there are almost never students with low aptitude and high scores.

I used to feel that test scores and aptitude were dubiously linked, and I still think that teaching strictly as test preparation is a poor idea, just to clarify.


#10



Rubicon

fade said:
Well. People complain a lot that test scores don't measure achievement. But I get them after they've tested. And I can tell you based on many, many students at several universities now, there actually is a strong correlation between test scores and aptitude. I can say that there have been a good number of exceptions, but overall, the exceptions form a small minority. And even there, the exceptions usually run one way. There are students with high aptitude that test low, but there are almost never students with low aptitude and high scores.

I used to feel that test scores and aptitude were dubiously linked, and I still think that teaching strictly as test preparation is a poor idea, just to clarify.
Click to expand...
But that does not hold true to everyone.

Myself for example, even if I study my ass off, even on a subject I know well, I'm likely to do average to poor on a test? Why? I'm not a test taker type. I get extremely nervous with tests, cause I know a grade for that test is on the line. Maybe failing that test doesn't fail me out of that course but still, the amount of academic pressure is amazingly high.

AND to prove that theory right, I've often done very well in class assignments, home work, projects, etc but when it came to tests, pop quizes, etc I'd do average or poorly.. I can memorize all the material, recite it all off to you, sit me down in a silent room of people taking a test, and I'm nervous as shit.

Granted, this ain't exactly the same for most people but our current educational system does not give a fair chance to all students. The only reason I did well in college was because I went to a technical school where all my classes were computer-related, and thus I knew a lot of the material extremely well from years of experience and it was mainly hands on work rather than standardized tests.


#11

fade

fade

Yeah, I know, I accounted for you in what I said. But I do think that people like you are a fairly small slice.


#12



Rubicon

I agree, there aren't many like us

However, since we are forced at a young young age to attend school, until 16 at least, you'd think they'd HELP you learn and be creative rather than memorization.

The system is ass backwards. You are legally forced to attend school, till 16 or whatnot. But if you graduate highschool, any further education cost comes from your pocket. Sure, there are student loans, grants, scholarships, etc but its the princple of the matter. At 18, whats the best job you can get? Something in retail? You're really going to afford a place to live, food, etc on that? Yet if you want a better job or even a career, you need the college education, which oh look our country does not provide even though for over 12 years we forced you to attend school anyway!


#13



Chibibar

I guess I should clarify that American testing system sucks (IMO) I believe in Asian style of schooling. You go to school and learn and you take take OUTSIDE of the school system to advance.

I remember my mother told me about this and the government pay for your school if you have the aptitude for it. It is very competitive. So you don't "learn to take the test" at school, you learn how you use your brain at school and test outside of the school system. If you pass, then you are off to the next set of grades etc etc.

Of course there are class room test to see if you are falling behind or can get ahead, but the TACT test in Taiwan would be if you get to attend Jr high, high school or even university (or even which university) I think that system is better that what we have now.

but that is me and because I'm bias toward Asian style.


#14

fade

fade

Chibibar, based on what I've seen of Japanese and Chinese schools I may disagree with you (can't speak about Taiwan). In both cases, a lot of professors simply stand in front of the class room and read. I've seen this multiple times. What's the point of holding a lecture?

I know this is totally anecdotal, but I had a friend spend a year at a major university in Beijing as a visiting professor, and the reports I got back were not encouraging. He saw people making their careers by copying US and UK articles into Chinese and publishing them. He said the profs were abusive verbally (often to the point of shouting angry insults at the top of their lungs) to the graduate students. I know it's a cultural difference, but one professor was particularly bad. He was constantly drunk, and my friend saw a frustrated grad student finally call him on it. He angrily berated the student. The student's parents sent gifts to this sorry excuse for a prof, and apologized profusely, because the university had no due process. The prof was judge and jury.

I don't mean to call into question all Chinese universities. I know this is one example from one department in one university. We get great students in geophysics from China. But at the same time, the examples I've seen from both China and Japan (the only Asian countries I have any experience with) were not the greatest.


#15



TotalFusionOne

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”
Click to expand...
Points if you know who said it. Double points if you can explain why it's relevant.


#16

Cajungal

Cajungal

John Dewey?


#17



TotalFusionOne

Correctamundo. Why is it relevant?


#18

@Li3n

@Li3n

Wouldn't better tests be the easiest solution?! Like one where memorization will only help you get a barely passing grade...


#19

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

@Li3n said:
Wouldn't better tests be the easiest solution?! Like one where memorization will only help you get a barely passing grade...
Click to expand...
But that would make too much god damn sense.


#20

@Li3n

@Li3n

AshburnerX;291021][quote=@Li3n said:
Wouldn't better tests be the easiest solution?! Like one where memorization will only help you get a barely passing grade...
Click to expand...
But that would make too much god damn sense.[/QUOTE]

Oh right, sorry, didn't consider that one, how stupid of me...


#21

ElJuski

ElJuski

sixpackshaker said:
I hate hearing teachers complain about teaching to the test. When a standardized test is put in place to see if your kids have mastery of your subject, you bloody well teach to the test. If not, you are not doing your job. The state decides what should be on the curriculum (through choosing the topics for the test) the teacher needs to follow through.

There needs to be more alignment with the curriculum, testing, teaching all the way through a state's department of education. The first time a student sees a test style, should not be on the test that decides if he is smart enough to be a 5th Grader. Unit/chapter tests should be using the same style of questions ought to be like the ones on the standardized tests.

Academic freedom is a nice luxury, but it leads to kids in different rooms getting vastly different educations.

/rant
Click to expand...
Your rant shows a very narrow-mind view of what education SHOULD be, and how education is accessed by various students. Teaching to the test forces teacher's to underdevelop student learning by cramming in tones of rote memorization and skill sets without applying educational experience into the equation. Not to mention that--especially in the language arts field--student's hands on experience with their material, versus simply dolling out globs of information and formal skill sets, helps the student much more in the long run.

There's a big movement with pedagogical instructors these days to teach incoming teachers more philosophically "Progressive" strategies--that is, going beyond the Essentialist formula of cramming certain facts and skill sets down every student's throat--which takes a more Dewey-centered approach by instilling a sense of experience and responsibility into the student. No, the student won't learn exactly the same thing as everyone else, but the core skills will be the same and will be made even more predominant by the student's connection to the skill set, instead of just aiming for a high test score.

Teaching to a test focuses the teacher and the class to build for that moment. If my "job" is to make sure my kids do well on a test, soon I won't have the student's education as my main goal, but rather to make sure that the students know how to beat the test. Rinse and repeat across the nation.

Furthermore, the current system aims to fuck the pooch. Already school funding is inappropriately misaligned, allowing for the rich schools to get richer and the poor schools to stay poor. It's a perpetuating cycle that funding-by-testing only exploits further. Students that don't have the means or desire to learn will not succeed. Teachers only have so much Freedom Writers super teacher capability; and yes, the ideal of being all for the kids can only go so far.

Lastly, cutting off funding from schools usually cuts off the arts, which is a grievous error in the philosophy of the general population. We need art and music for how it foster's students minds and develops cultural literacy. Which, if testing is TRULY trying to give an essential education, they would include.

Anyways. The problem with funding, I believe, is that it needs to be distributed differently than it's current method. Also, the bar set for people to become teachers needs to be raised. I'm proud to be part of the strongest teaching schools in the state, and a nationally accredited teaching school and secondary ed english areas in the nation. Even then I see the failings in where my school is giving teaching access to certain people. If you look small, and expand the picture, that's how you'll solve the problem. Taking a national focus at the educational dynamic and looking smaller won't work. It just screws everyone over a little bit more.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
TotalFusionOne said:
Correctamundo. Why is it relevant?
Click to expand...
It's somewhere in my long winded rant.

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

Or maybe not; I had Dewey in mind but never reflected THAT specific notion. That is indeed what essentialist education does--rather than broadening societal perception and educational implications, it forces a continuance of the status quo.


#22

Cajungal

Cajungal

It's more convenient to try and get kids to all learn one way than to differentiate instruction and assessment in order to at least try to accommodate everyone.


#23

ElJuski

ElJuski

And the awesome thing is, multiple intelligences prove that all kids don't learn one way. So, once again, big set up for failure.

I will say THIS though--common assessment can be pretty useful within small cases, like between the department. It's small enough where the group of teachers can monitor student learning and remediate what's necessary almost instantaneously. Plus, one of the only PLUS sides to common assessment, is that students can reach out for broader perspective from their classmates, and teachers can learn a thing or two from each other within the department.

I still wouldn't make it an all-the-time thing, though


#24



TotalFusionOne

Or maybe not; I had Dewey in mind but never reflected THAT specific notion. That is indeed what essentialist education does--rather than broadening societal perception and educational implications, it forces a continuance of the status quo.
Click to expand...
Right.

The public school system was created for one purpose, and one purpose only: Workforce.


#25

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

TotalFusionOne said:
Or maybe not; I had Dewey in mind but never reflected THAT specific notion. That is indeed what essentialist education does--rather than broadening societal perception and educational implications, it forces a continuance of the status quo.
Click to expand...
Right.

The public school system was created for one purpose, and one purpose only: Workforce.
Click to expand...
Too bad it's creating a workforce meant for the 19th century, instead of the 21st.


#26



TotalFusionOne

Too bad it's creating a workforce meant for the 19th century, instead of the 21st.
Click to expand...
PRECISELY. This is my point. Hey, here's an idea... Voucher. Programs. Let capitalism decide the best schools.


#27

ElJuski

ElJuski

The problem with that though is that, on certain levels, people are still getting fucked over. But then again, I don't necessarily have a better idea either. All I know is that the current system is lacking.


#28

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

TotalFusionOne said:
Too bad it's creating a workforce meant for the 19th century, instead of the 21st.
Click to expand...
PRECISELY. This is my point. Hey, here's an idea... Voucher. Programs. Let capitalism decide the best schools.
Click to expand...
Transportation tends to be an issue with voucher programs, as well as a whole host of class based issues.


#29



Chibibar

I agree with your Eljuski. What I see are schools "dividing" up the "alternate learners" and "general learners" so they can boost their test score and thus get funding.

Of course there are other factors that may reduce test scores. I try not to be "stereotypical" but poorer areas student may not do well cause of stress factor and such and thus when the test scores come around, they are poor and thus funding cuts :(

fade: I see that too in Taiwan, but I figure with the U.S. system combine with Chinese system (not 100% over the other) you can get a good medium. Teachers are consider parents in school in Asian country (Taiwan and Thailand where I went to school) and thus that is why you see/report of you see.

Of course I see many western schools (which I also attend before college) that are just pure lecture too and teachers get no respect at all.

maybe a happy medium somewhere.


#30

Krisken

Krisken

Would our focus on individualism and decreased parental involvement have any effect on how our school systems are performing?


#31

ElJuski

ElJuski

Well, of course they would.


#32

Cajungal

Cajungal

To an extent, and if it's done properly. There are a lot of teachers I've witnessed who do a lot of differentiation in instruction but make assessment so painfully easy that they don't retain anything, nor do they know how to apply what they've learned.

It's great if students are comfortable and having fun, but some teachers have trouble including actual learning in that. I have an amazing mentor at a school who teaches a 3rd grade class. For social studies, they have these NOISY, chaotic debates that would drive most teachers crazy... but they can remember everything they learn about Louisiana and why it's important.


#33

ElJuski

ElJuski

Ideally, a good education for a student would involve the teacher and the parent taking an active role in finding out how the student best learns and adapting the environment to make that learning more conducive.

In a classroom of 30, a teacher has only so much time to work individually with students, but that's why I believe in a pragmatic approach to education--give students options within the confines of your classroom, and guide them throughout. Group work is key. Getting to know your students is key. By allowing your students to choose, say, between three different books to read or what topic they want to write on a paper or essay allows the student to make individual, easier connections.

Teaching is reflexive, and learning is geared towards experience. There are certain things which are universal--grammar, understanding poetic language--but learning these concepts can be taken through multiple avenues. More importantly, students learn the most not when they are being lectured and jotting down notes, but when they are synthesizing this information and reproducing it to one another. Individual choice, plus group work for students to respond to one another's work, allows for an individualized education that gets reinforced in a community, connecting individual experience to a more "universal" learning standard.

Assessment is a whole different issue. Too many teachers are not properly instructed in developing assessment. All too many times teacher's create assessments which inadvertently help the student who hasn't actually learned the material, but knows how to trick the system and get a good grade.

Good test taking skills does NOT equal actual knowledge. Take a franizpanics test, for instance, and you can easily see the skills are not necessarily correlated.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Franzipanics test: http://quizilla.teennick.com/quizzes/6672767/test-of-franzipanics-the-strangest-quiz-youll-ever-take

Multiple Intelligences: http://literacyworks.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html
(I couldn't find the one I took a few weeks ago, but this should suffice)

I'm hitting two notes here--one, reinforcing that test taking skills and strategies are different than core knowledge or the skill sets acquired in the content area.

The second, being that people are more adept to learning in certain forms than others. I have high oral, and interpersonal intelligences, but am severely lacking in some of the others. Therefore, I (conveniently) learn fairly well in lecture and in discussion settings. Not everyone is like me; some people need visuals. Some people need physical interaction with what they are learning.

The idea that students are workhorses that, if pushed hard enough and have the stoic appreciation of reading and regurgitation, will succeed is absurd, and antiquated for a reason.


#34

fade

fade

Group work is one of those things that makes fine logical sense. It doesn't take much effort to see that group work and class participation are good things.

BUT.

In reality, I have had no luck with either. The students simply don't want to do them. They find them tacky or cheesy. They don't pay attention. They don't interact during participation time. The groups chat rather than attend. They'd rather have the lecture because it requires minimal effort from them in the moment, even if they understand logically that the result will be less desirable.

A compromise that I've found in my teaching (and if I can pat myself on the back, I'm a pretty damn good teacher) is to alter my lectures so that I teach the why rather than the what. I have seen more lightbulbs turn on this way. If for instance, you explain a derivative, give the definition, and then move to problems, the student learns it exactly like that. An unaffixed definition with no real meaning. It's a nebulous set of rules. On the other hand if you take the time to put it in a historical perspective, and show the usefulness of a derivative in addition to the rules, you get a huge return.


#35

ElJuski

ElJuski

Well obviously different teachers have different teaching styles. Also, different classes will be receptive to different techniques. I can't blame you for not doing the one exact thing that I enjoy doing myself. If your practice works best for you, and you have your student's best interests in mind, and they score highly in your class, then you are a great teacher, and you're doing what is right.

So far, community work in the classroom has been beyond helpful for me.

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

That came off kind of snarky, anyways. What I mean to say, is, that's just my philosophy. Obviously you come off competent and know what you're doing.

Also, you're a geologist, right? A much different content area than English (unless I'm wrong, in which case, if it works, it works!)


#36

fade

fade

I'm not trying to belittle your tactics. I wish they worked for me. (I realize that it came across as belittling when I said that it didn't take much to see that etc. -- I was actually belittling the students who know this and still don't do it).

I tried to get group participation from my Honors Geology class. I assumed a group like that would want the best teaching experience I could provide. But they just wouldn't. They sighed and carried on about it. Same with grad classes. That's the real reason I came up with the compromise. I sort of force group thinking on them by making them connect the why to the what.


#37

ElJuski

ElJuski

Nah, I know you ain't belittlin' me. It's all gravy, baby. Teaching takes a huge skill set that most people outside of the profession don't realize. Hell, I'm still getting around to getting an official paycheck for it and every week I'm astounded at how much extra skills and knowledge I'm building just to be the shitty new guy.


#38

MindDetective

MindDetective

Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.


#39

Cajungal

Cajungal

MindDetective said:
Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.
Click to expand...
That's what half of my professors have said.


#40

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

MindDetective said:
Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.
Click to expand...
You really need to back up something like that with a link or something, if you want us to take you seriously. Not saying your wrong, but you need to give us SOMETHING :D


#41

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I can only speak from personal experience, but at least for teaching English in Japan, a system built around standardized test-taking didn't actually have much effect on my students' abilities to actually speak and write in English.

If you asked them to translate:

"I will take this test in 2 hours."
and
"I'll take this test in 2 hours."

They would translate them perfectly, but would not be able to cognitively understand why the sentences were saying the same thing.

That's the kind of mindset that teaching to test seems to create, IMO. At the end of the day, you're not being taught the subject so you can use it outside of school, you're being taught how to pass a specific test on the subject that you'll never see again outside of school.


#42

ElJuski

ElJuski

Cajungal;291343][quote=MindDetective said:
Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.
Click to expand...
That's what half of my professors have said.[/QUOTE]


So what's the alternative? We've been taught multiple intelligences was a pretty well-accepted theory.


#43

@Li3n

@Li3n

Memorization is easy to forget, i did it almost every year when i was actually bothering to learn for school, after 3 months of summer vacation 90% of stuff i had forgotten... actually understanding something makes it way easier to recall it later, like riding a bike.


#44



Chibibar

ElJuski;291444][quote=Cajungal;291343][quote=MindDetective said:
Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.
Click to expand...
That's what half of my professors have said.[/QUOTE]


So what's the alternative? We've been taught multiple intelligences was a pretty well-accepted theory.[/QUOTE]

I believe in multiple intelligence. at least this is why.

emotional intelligence - while these people are not book smart or can calculate complex math in their head, they can listen and understand a great deal of things in life. They can pass great wisdom to others. Wisdom is emotional intelligence.

Book intelligence - these people can memorize stuff and spew it back out. Maybe it is not intelligence, but that what these test really focus on. What happen where in what year? etc etc. pretty much memorization stuff.

I know that some newer test suppose to teach students to use process and actually think and solve issues (like word problems) these kinds of test is hard for people who don't know how to make them. (like me)


#45

MindDetective

MindDetective

ElJuski;291444][quote=Cajungal;291343][quote=MindDetective said:
Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.
Click to expand...
That's what half of my professors have said.[/quote]


So what's the alternative? We've been taught multiple intelligences was a pretty well-accepted theory.[/QUOTE]

Not even close to well-accepted. It is the theory of intelligence with the LEAST amount of support for it. Yet it is taught in every gen psych class and was snatched up by the education field real quick.

Here's the skinny on multiple intelligences: If you have a psychological construct, like musical intelligence, logical intelligence, etc., and you have a measure for it, your measures should NOT correlate with each other. They have to be independent if they are truly different constructs. Someone has to be able to have a high musical intelligence and EITHER a high, moderate, or low logical intelligence. These things cannot be linked, otherwise they are just expressions of a singular intelligence. You can probably guess where I'm going with this. The 7 (8, or more, depending on which version of multiple intelligences you are taught) different intelligences DO correlate with each other (many do, not all), which implies they are measure the same thing, not different things. On top of that, some of the multiple intelligences (like interpersonal intelligence) correlate with established measures of personality. Now, it is certainly possibly that those personality measures are just measures of intelligence, but in order to accept that you have to give up the idea of personality characteristics. Then everything becomes some type of intelligence.

So what else is there? A variety of options. Some favor fluid and crystallized intelligence as a distinction. Fluid is the ability to handle novel problems, creativity, etc. and crystallized refers to skills and knowledge that are learned in response to specific situations or problems. Another possibility is general intelligence (g) and specialized intelligence (s). g refers to an innate cognitive ability. It basically determines your maximum potential and affects ability on all tasks that require intelligence. s refers to the learned abilities, basically your training in a certain area (like music or math or poetry or psychology). It comes from experience and is affected by and limited by g but is derived from what you've learned. There are other theories as well, like the triarchic theory, which talks about practical intelligence and abstract intelligence, etc.

In my opinion, intelligence is extremely hard to disentangle from other things. In part, I think we have to accept that intelligence is in the eye of the beholder. In part, it is simply training. Einstein said the only reason he was considered a genius was because he spent more time thinking about physics than most other people. In the end, multiple intelligences doesn't explain anything. It offers a way to label or categorize but that is it. Yes, it is good to keep in mind that students are unique, with varying experiences and personalities. We don't serve them by classifying them by the way they think, especially when that classification system is flawed.

Btw, it turns out "learning styles" are bunk as well.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 PM ----------
AshburnerX;291345][quote=MindDetective said:
Multiple intelligences is (mostly) a crock. Please, please, please, don't buy into it.
Click to expand...
You really need to back up something like that with a link or something, if you want us to take you seriously. Not saying your wrong, but you need to give us SOMETHING :D[/QUOTE]

Sorry. I had to rush off to class. I gave you a nice wall of text. If you want links, I can provide some but a lot of that stuff is relatively accurate on Wikipedia (under criticisms).


#46

Cajungal

Cajungal

If you can find anything I would like some of those sources if you can find them. :) My psychology professors both told me that, but it's only briefly mentioned in the textbooks.


#47

MindDetective

MindDetective

Send me a PM as a reminder. I am likely to forget. :)


#48

ElJuski

ElJuski

See, this is interesting hearing this from another professional in the field. I'm surprised because my current teacher hold her master's in psychology and her doctorate in pedagogy. So it's interesting to see somebody who has a doctorate in the field drop these examples.

Why are learning styles bunk? It's obvious that students have different learning preferences, at least. And what does this mean for students with disabilities that need specific adaptation in the classroom?


#49

MindDetective

MindDetective

ElJuski said:
See, this is interesting hearing this from another professional in the field. I'm surprised because my current teacher hold her master's in psychology and her doctorate in pedagogy. So it's interesting to see somebody who has a doctorate in the field drop these examples.

Why are learning styles bunk? It's obvious that students have different learning preferences, at least. And what does this mean for students with disabilities that need specific adaptation in the classroom?
Click to expand...
Preferences is different than styles, which implies a learning advantage under a specific modality. That simply isn't true. For the most part, the material drives the modality, not the ability of the student. Here's a nice youtube video and an accompanying article in American Educator (by the same psychologist as the video).



Article: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogsci.htm


#50

Covar

Covar

Do you have a transcript of that? I learn better from reading. ;)


#51

Cajungal

Cajungal

D'ah! That's what one of my teachers said... and he was also a cognitive psychologist.


#52

MindDetective

MindDetective

Covar said:
Do you have a transcript of that? I learn better from reading. ;)
Click to expand...
:rimshot:


#53

Covar

Covar

Ok in all seriousness that was a fascinating video. Very interesting information. Also reaffirmed my desire to seek out a Psychology minor.


#54

ElJuski

ElJuski

Sweet deal. Thanks for the link. It makes sense to me. It DOES make me wonder why the education fields decided to sweep up apparent BS so quickly. I'm guessing because it rides on that touchy-feelie business. They loves some touchy-feelie business!


#55

MindDetective

MindDetective

ElJuski said:
Sweet deal. Thanks for the link. It makes sense to me. It DOES make me wonder why the education fields decided to sweep up apparent BS so quickly. I'm guessing because it rides on that touchy-feelie business. They loves some touchy-feelie business!
Click to expand...
I think you're on to something. In some ways that is good. We want caring teachers. In some ways it might get in the way with reasonable, evidence-based approaches to instruction. Every good teacher wants to find the BEST way to teach their class. They really do want their students to learn. It has to be a good combination of empathy/understanding for the diversity of their students and using that knowledge to effectively and appropriately teach them. We don't need a sterile, Skinnerian type of environment to do this. In fact, that probably is not the best environment to learn in. But we can't have our teachers just accepting anything that sounds good either. :-\


#56

Cajungal

Cajungal

That's exactly what it is--the touchy feelie business. It's getting to where the social lessons you're supposed to natural learn are being actively taught, and it's really weird and awkward. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this... it just aggravates me.


#57

ElJuski

ElJuski

I gotta admit, I'm really happy there are other teaching professionals and to-be-professionals here. Awesome perspective.


#58

HoboNinja

HoboNinja

Covar said:
Do you have a transcript of that? I learn better from reading. ;)
Click to expand...
See I understand what the video is saying but there are different styles that work better for some.

Like myself, I learn better in a classroom when the teacher is talking and discussing and writing it on the board, showing pictures, and videos. Where as if the teacher just assigns me a chapter to read, I can read the same text 5-6 times and still not memorize/learn it as well as if I was taught it in the classroom.


#59

MindDetective

MindDetective

That's not just a difference in style, though. There is a change in the context, the way the information is interrelated, and depth to which you (or the student) is interacting with the material. In general passive learning == bad and active, engaged learning == good. So there is not just a style difference between reading a chapter and having an interactive, integrated lesson.

On a side note, I read about an odd memory phenomenon a while back where people remember information better if they believe it was generated by a person than if they believe it was generated by a computer. We are inherently social beings, so there may be some very powerful social influences that directly impact learning!


#60

Cajungal

Cajungal

Not only that, but few people are taught HOW to effectively learn/memorize, Hobo. I actually just did a presentation on this. Independent study is made so much easier if you know how to make connections and how to practice absorbing the information into your long term memory. Learning not to be passive while taking in information is the key, and knowing that rote memorization and simply reading chapters over and over won't get you far at all.

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

EXAMPLE:

This is just an elementary example. I wrote 5 stories for a lesson this past semester, using funny sentences that were soundalikes of states. It seems like it would be MORE work to learn these stories, but when pictures are added to shapes of the states AS I'm reading (using more senses, and therefore differentiating in a good and productive way, I feel...), students actually remembered it better than simply by looking at a map and reciting.

Lemme see if I can find those... Well one story was about "Sally West," who visited the southwest. She met an old asthmatic voodoo queen there named "Wheezy Anna." The humor helps people remember, too. Why do you think some people can easily quote Monty Python but not remember all the Presidents?


#61

fade

fade



#62

@Li3n

@Li3n

Transilvasnia, really?! Was this made like 200 years ago or something?


#63

Cajungal

Cajungal

fade said:
Click to expand...
PRECISELY!


Top