So, it's been a while, part of me almost missed writing these blog posts . . . until I had to do one. That being said, this chapter of Ayers was quite enjoyable and informative because it highlights several key areas of pedagogical debate, assessment controversy and general teaching practices which are called into question. Namely, assessment, grouping students by ability level (or lack of ability), and standardized testing.
Throughout all my courses so far in the B.Ed program, I've been searching for concrete, hard facts and truths about these topics, and have really only been met with opinions, changing stories, or very circumstantial evidence. Assessment seems to have moved away from uniform methods of assessing students and turns towards malleable evaluations which accommodate different abilities, strengths or challenges. That doesn't seem too negative, and Ayers own structure, allowing the 3 P's (performance, projects and portfolios) allows students to be evaluated with methods which accommodate their abilities. I don't have any major qualms with that, as long as it remains within the spirit of what needs to be assessed and evaluated and does not allow for so much variance that all we are really doing is finding ways for students to be reassured and coddled. An example of that would be moving so far away from writing skills, because a student shows difficulty in that area, so as the final method of evaluation shows no evidence of that initial skill which was supposed to be developed and learnt. Now onto the juicy stuff. First, standardized testing. I've heard numerous and varied arguments for and against standardized testing. In our 3121 class, I went as far to being the most extreme supporter of the value of standardized testing, defending them as necessary elements of education. The reason I did that, an opinion distinctly unpopular with my classmates, was because I believe standardized tests are powerful tools and can provide incredible insight into what is going on in classes, overall trends, small anomalies, and call to attention areas of education which otherwise would be in the dark. However, I believe that the dangers, risks, problems arise from the USE of that data, how it is interpreted, stressed, focused on, taught, and everything else surrounding the test. I'll use an analogy to try and flush this idea out more. Let's say we have a population of animals, maybe deer in a given area. We are concerned about the deer, curious how healthy they are, are they moving, increasing, decreasing, etc. So we can send an airplane, and take an aerial photo of the deer in their environment. A snapshot of how they are. For me, that's standardized testing in it's pure, ideal form. However, let's say, we had special interests groups, who wanted to show that the deer are suffering. So a week before the photo is taken, some activists go out, herd the deer outside of the area, and then when the photo is taken, it shows a decrease in the deer population. Or vice versa, people coralling more deer into the area. Or giving the deer more food before the photo so they will appear healthier, and then denying them food after when it is not needed. That's basically what standardized testing, and the mess surrounding it is. If we place too much emphasis on them, grade schools by performance, punish students who perform poorly, over interpret the data, all those issues, those come as external positives or negatives. So for me, if we acknowledge the limitations and purpose of the test, we can use them simply as snapshots of what might be going on, and not as definitive proofs of progress or failure. Ayers takes a very anti-standardized testing stance in his comic, and it seems to stem from the biased, rigid format and how limited that format might be fore real assessment value. That makes sense since the US system, much like ours in some ways, places too much emphasis on those test results and is obsessed with scores. The test he took might be a good indication of how adjusted those teacher candidates were to sample problems, or cultural/linguistic situations that might be common in some US schools. I think his criticisms are valid, but not the be all or end all on that subject. I don't know if Ayers will revisit the idea of grouping his students in reading groups based on level. I've heard numerous different opinions on this teaching practice, lower level students benefit from interaction with higher level students, or the opposite, or split grade classes are great for quality education, or split grade classes are impossible to really address all the students needs, etc etc. Even now as we start new classes, I hear contradictory ideas. I've seen both in practice, students being grouped with like able'd classmates. Sometimes they pull together, become more engaged, sometimes it holds them back, limits their potential. Sometimes higher level students gain more by explaining and leading by example. Sometimes they learn more by being challenged and pushed by their peers. Honestly, choosing which is the best seems impossible. Even in Ayers own comic, while the word has come down from the administration and staff, it seems he's not quite sure where to stand. He does it, and groups his students by Gold, Silver or Bronze levels, but the children are depicted with confused, unsure and skeptical faces. Even they are uncertain of how appropriate or beneficial this will be. I'm hoping Ayers will flush out how these groupings work later on. Right now it seems that it's just accepted as something that needs to be done, but I have mixed feelings. Every time I step into a classroom, and have to broaden my teaching to reach ability ranges over 4, 5 or even 6 grade levels, I know the quality of my teaching is suffering. Trying to create learning opportunities, activities, etc for students at a grade 8 level, while also for others at a grade 2 or 3 level, leaves me frustrated and discouraged. However, when I get to work with a small group, and they are all at the same level, we definitely make more progress and I feel that real, concrete learning is happening. But that is just one isolated incident. More and more I'm finding that differentiation, IEP's and the reality of more split grade classes, less teacher support and all the other harsh realities of actually teaching in Ontario are daunting beyond belief. But mixed in with that hesitation and nervousness are the moments of reaching students and feeling the joy of inspiring learning. Feels like quite a long way to go before I can really pass judgement on all these things (if we ever get there).
0 Comments
|
Archives
October 2016
Categories |