I think this clip caught my attention because in a way it touches on the problem that I am very interested in - using professional terminology and students' understanding of what this terminology actually means.
As much as I find professional terminology important, I am concern about what Gail brought up. She says (about MSP teaching):
"I'm totally teaching to the test. And it is really important that kids understand that - you have to use this word or you might not get a point".
"With the kinetic and motion, going back and fourth, it's confusing. (...) If they don't see it on MSP in motion, they just see kinetic, they might not make that connection".
I was recently working on a project, where we analyze one the the problems on the test that students are suppose to take after the Electricity and Magnetism I course. All questions are designed in such a way that students have to first name the method that they would use to solve the problem, and then describe how would they use it to solve it (they are not suppose to actually solve it). We graded students' answers twice - once, following the rubric, and second time, based on how descriptive they were. Our findings were somewhat disturbing: almost a third of the students provided the "correct" answer (they named the method they would use), but then was either unclear about how to use this method or did not explain it at all.
Does it meant that -- starting in middle school -- students are being taught how to use "terms" and not so much about what these terms really mean?
Or does it mean that the assessment tools need to be re-design in order to prevent this way of teaching?
Yes to both!
ReplyDeleteI am interested in conversations like this because it seems to me that standardized tests disempower teachers. There's a really powerful discussion of this in Erickson's (2007) Proximal Formative Assessment paper.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a piece of an interview with Richard Feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ
ReplyDeleteKnowing words doesn't mean we understand something. BUT, after real learning DOES occur, and something is truly known about a situation, then I think we DO need an established and agreed upon set of words that "properly" convey known things. If not, people will spend all their time arguing over what everybody means and no time "advancing the field." So I think this makes the problem of professional terminology especially deep. Standards and assessments seem to cause mass memorization of these words to occur, yet these words are crucial. Which makes it all the more necessary to discover what we can do to change this trend.
I imagine this is what the Energy Project is all about. Giving teachers deep learning experiences that they can then bring back to their students in the form of deep learning activities that dig to the root of these formally memorized profession terms.