A number of things struck me as odd in the anonymous teacher's experience of teaching A level students; most interesting was the issue of students not just being "spoon-feed" answers, but specifically requesting the process. As a teacher this is an observation that I can relate to however the tone of the author makes me worried that seeing students lacking independence and seeing them sit exams is becoming a too-easy causal critique.
The teacher writing does all of the right things: students googling answers to questions, the drive towards targets and predicted grades, a prescriptive syllabus, writing to fill the appropriate number of lines on the question paper; all things that educators at many levels may have experienced. My issue with this is not that these things exist but the recalcitrance of many teachers to adapt to things with which they disagree.
"I don't give my students a formula to answer the question" this teacher proudly proclaims. Unfortunately this is just as insidious as the, much maligned, 'teaching-to-the-test'. This is a question from an A level 'General Studies' exam paper two summers ago:
I usually teach Physics rather than General Studies but, on finding the discarded mock exam in my classroom, was fascinated by the kind of questions the 17/18 year old students were asked to write, rather substantial, essays on. Here is another:
"The American author Mark Twain defined a classic novel as "something everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read." Discuss what makes a classic novel and say how far you agree with this view."
How about:
"Question 7: 'The system for voting in British general elections is deeply flawed and, some say, undemocratic.' Discuss whether you believe this is true and what features of the electoral process critics may see as flawed or undemocratic."
or:
"Question 4: 'Fashions reflect the prevailing morality of their time'. Discuss this view and say how far you believe it to be true."
and:
I completely agree that no teacher's sole focus should be on 'the formula' necessary but in these cases there is rather little chance of a general studies teacher having covered the moral aspects to fashion, classic novels or, in one question, what European films Gordon Brown should have given to Barack Obama. Each of these questions requires detailed thought, a clear argument, but crucially an understanding of how to respond in the appropriate way.
If we return to John Humphrys, the exam board AQA produced a report on the examination, in it they wrote a general comment on how students responded to each question that year:
Question 04 offered some robust defences of reality television, though candidates usually offered insufficient reference to John Humphrys’ specific views. There was little secure definition of reality shows and a surprisingly wide and inappropriate range of such programmes appeared. There was something on aspiration and role modelling from many candidates, with lavish reference to Made in Chelsea and the like. The extent of illustration often helped to differentiate between responses. A surprising number of candidates seemed to treat John Humphrys’ statement with a high degree of respect.
Lots of students agreed, many picked a television show they felt able to write about and few engaged with the specifics of the question. Out of interest here is what any of us sitting the exam were expected to pull out from the question:
Here the simple question required a formula. The language of the statement needed analysing, students were expected to know who John Humphrys was (and potentially use it against him), in some cases they got brownie points for Latin.
It's not my intention to point to a teacher with whom I disagree but blaming examinations for students not being able to think is nowhere near the right solution. It's one thing for a teacher to take umbrage with the concept but quite another not to teach students what skills they will find useful to pass an exam (even if it is only General Studies). The best teachers combine both, teaching content and then helping students construct their understanding of it in such a way that they can articulate it, many times that happens to include understanding what an exam question wants them to do.
The article ends with a paragraph intended to slam their argument closed:
Isn't it a punchy technique; end with a nice punchy sentence that succinctly makes your point and highlights the tone of your article. I'm sure that was totally natural and not something the 'Secret Teacher' noticed was part of the formula for writing a polemic.
Incidentally this is one of the simplest questions my 16 year old Physics students had to answer last summer. Nationally only 15% of students got all of the marks for it:
The exams are what the exams are. Knowing this definition word-for-word gets you two marks, you'll need 35 for an E grade. Good luck if your teacher spent your Physics lessons "teaching [you] how to think, not just learn the syllabus".*
*See, everyone does it.
No comments:
Post a Comment