|
|
| Re: ARTICLE: America's biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta (808739) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ARTICLE: America's biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Wed Jul 13 02:49:37 2011, in response to Re: ARTICLE: America's biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta, posted by JayMan on Thu Jul 7 19:25:50 2011. As promised, my response to this article and your hypothesis (that overemphasis on standardized tests does not undercut students' ability to think, given that such is mostly dictated by IQ and personality):Clearly, there are points in Mr. Charlton's article that I concur with - namely, that education cannot modulate IQ to any significant degree and that the strength of curricula (i.e. subject matter) is more significant than its structure. However, there are some points I take issue with, which I will now explain. When full account has been taken of IQ and personality (and the measured effects of IQ and personality have been increased to take account of the inevitable imprecision of IQ measurements and the even greater difficulties of determining personality), and when the presumed effects of chance have also been subtracted – then there is not much variation of outcomes left-over within which educational differences could have an effect. Of course there will be some systemic effect of educational differences, but the effect is likely to be very much smaller than generally assumed, and even the direction of the education effect may be hard to detect when other more powerful factors are operative [1]. Certainly IQ and personality are significant factors in determining one's aptitude; however, the effect of educational differences is not as insignificant as Mr. Charlton implies. Consider, for instance, a study conducted by Carrell and West concerning the influence of professors on student achievement at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Their findings show that professor education and experience (i.e. highest degree earned and years teaching) are negatively correlated with student performance in prerequisite courses (r = -0.69), but positively correlated with student performance in subsequent courses dependent on that prerequisite (r = 0.70). What this means is that students who took prereq. courses under professors with lower levels of education and experience performed much better in the prereq. courses than those taking the same prereqs. with more experienced professors (who are much more likely to develop a curriculum that stimulates deep learning). Consequently, students who took follow-up courses did worse when the prereqs. were taught by lower-experienced profs. than those who took the prereqs. with higher-experienced profs; the exception to this was when both prereq and follow-up courses were taught by the same prof - this yielded high student achievement gains. In the case of the lower-experienced profs, the article I cited suggests that such are more likely to stick to "regimented" curricula and teach to the test, resulting in a higher likelihood of success early-on but a far lower likelihood of retaining the knowledge needed to succeed in follow-up courses. This study was also cited in another article which analyzed data from a longitudinal study conducted in 1988 (yes, the data are that old; Payne acknowledges this in the article's conclusion). The analysis also found negative correlation between a teacher's experience and test scores, supporting some of Carrell and West's remarks - namely, that test-based curricula improve near-term results but impart little lasting knowledge. Now, let us consider another point raised in Charlton's article: ...a person’s level of ability to think abstractly and systematically is mostly a biological given – and not a consequence of formal education. The implication is that formal education should not be focusing on trying to do what it cannot do – i.e. enhance IQ. Instead, formal education should focus on educational goals where is can make a difference: i.e. the teaching of specific knowledge [1]. I agree with this premise - and that's why teaching to the test IS a problem. In addition to the points I highlighted in the article in my OP (namely, that schools are subject to being "split" or closed and teachers fired if test scores are not "up to par"), there is also the problem of misdirected education "reforms" such as NCLB and Race to the Top - both of which emphasize standardized test scores. A consequence of the focus on standardized testing is a bastardizing of curricula (namely, sacrificing subject content for elements specifically designed to improve standardized test scores); this, along with the evidence suggesting that students studying under test-based curricula do worse long-term, show that such curricula impede the imparting of "specific knowledge." Concerning some of Charlton's points on replacing current standardized testing with psychometric testing and reducing the time-frame of formal education: the evidence I provided supports his point somewhat; Payne's analysis shows a negative correlation between length of school days and performance in private schools (r = -0.222), which is counter to another reform idea floated by some gov't officials - that more schooling (in the form of longer days and/or more school days per year) = more results. Incidentally, the evidence also suggests significant correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and academic performance; in terms of teacher effects, they were more pronounced among students of low SES than those of high SES. Payne's article also acknowledged the role of genetics in a student's intellect, with no correlation found between intellect in low-SES students and performance and 60% correlation between intellect in high-SES students and performance; more details are found in Section II of his article. On the point of Conscientiousness: if "tasks that require a great deal of toil and effort" are significant indicators of conscientiousness, then I surmise that work in the form of challenging HW and projects will be a greater barometer of such than testing. (Note, however, that I do not advocate eliminating all testing - just that curricula shouldn't be centered around them.) As far as having certain students do grinding work in an employment sense to measure conscientiousness, isn't this already done in some capacity in terms of schools that allow one to intern with an organization for credit? Also, what if these "dull and demanding but necessary jobs" are outside of one's degree of study? Given that employers are increasingly requiring bachelor's (and higher!) degrees and multiple years experience for jobs that arguably consist of "dull and demanding but necessary work," how does one enact the proposed reforms Charlton suggests without first reforming employer criteria for such work? ********************************************************************** As an aside, while on the subject of IQ tests, what do you make of GIGI? I just might take this thing some day... |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|