Creative Discussion using Plain Pair Groups |
Creative Discussion – a key to insight and change
|
Plain
Pair Group Teaching (Plain PGT)
- for universities and schools Plain Pair Group Discussion (Plain PGD) - for decision making and staff development - for informal or community creative discussion |
A flash of insight is the spark of cosmic intelligence.
|
Home page |
Teaching and testing – the terrible twins“Evaluation and responsibility in the student-centred classroom”How to give a useful grade in a student-centred classroom: quantity as a guide to improvement. Like many teachers I've administered a lot of tests and I continue to "give a grade" to my students. Although I “don't believe in testing” I think I've found a way around the problem of tests and giving grades in classes (proficiency testing is a different issue). This paper will question a few values and make a few suggestions. The manner in which I give the workshop will allow the participant to experience the type of classroom where the solutions I propose can best be applied.
A. Language education: creativity or conditioningI have a few problems with conventional testing – and teaching! Approach to testing reflects approach to teaching Washback effect – both ways Teaching as ‘heavy learning’ / ‘light learning’ Teacher centred, receptive learning, authority invested in teacher Student centred, creative learning, student controls own learning Teaching so student learns what someone else knows / teaching so student discovers what they know Teacher as source of knowledge, transmission, student receiving – testing to determine if reception is accurate Teacher imparts knowledge but student has time to work out own position – cannot be directly tested, no limit to student knowledge Classroom creates society – as in CR so in workplace etc Only one person in CR is active, creative, self-directing Only those who follow the rules and rise to the top can say how things are done Each person has equal share of activity, creativity, direction Makes use of creative potential of all members Testing – ‘the art of precise uncertainty’ Apparent precision of exact grade Even publicly prepared tests have very wide error range Look good but in fact very vague See below on test error B. Testing stops learningPurpose of testing (exams) is to create/perpetuate a social hierarchy Is this what you want? – NB this is what you are doing! Purpose of testing is to promote accuracy But testing looks for errors (psychology of teacher testing) Testing tests what student does not know Testing is always limited Only tests within certain strict limits How can you test open ended knowledge Can a test test what the student knows? Including what the teacher does not know What type of teaching can increase learning How can testing (evaluation) help learning The teacher: always testing Looking for error and correcting = “the testing tic” You can recognise a teacher a mile off Always correcting you Testing is the requirement of accuracy Teacher looks for mistakes, not for genius Continual correction blocks creativity, encourages conditioning Do it the way you are told Teacher, don’t correct In order to facilitate communication, the teacher should avoid making individual corrections. Fluency requires the freedom to make mistakes. Space for responsibility and personal involvement Alternate teacher direction: teacher as centre And student interaction: teacher silence Principle rule: don’t correct Difficult to pass up on chance to correct an error Ethos of education: accuracy, and evaluation Student expects it! Preoccupation with accuracy hinders fluency Fluency at heart of communication Effect on future society of continuous teacher correction Expectation of authority and lack of creativity and responsibility Observe errors but comment to whole class Avoid commenting to an individual Leave freedom to experiment, even to ‘misunderstand’ Develop capacity for independence and creativity
C. Standard forms of evaluationTesting proficiency: how good is the student Absolute proficiency: how good is a student at the end of the course Penalises those who study hard but have lower initial level of proficiency Relative proficiency: how much has a student improved during the course Very difficult to measure a small increment in proficiency over a short period Testing performance: how well does the student ‘perform’ during the class Measures of performance not very reliable Ad hoc teacher tests have little chance of being accurate Given that professional pre-tested tests have wide ‘error of measurement’ The description is not the language (Magritte – “This is not a pipe”) Grammar: testing the description – grammar is not the language, it is (one) contrived description of the language Communicative: testing the use of the language – in a contrived situation How can we test creative thinking and discovery (in the L2)?? How can I give a useful grade when I want to avoid testing? Evaluation which does not interfere with learning Test what the student knows, not what they don’t know Avoid teacher interference in student’s learning Create sense of responsibility for one’s learning Promote creativity and insight Involving student in evaluation – approaches to classroom management A system of partial self-evaluation can increase the student’s involvement and sense of responsibility. Involvement in self-evaluation Student direction of own learning Most classroom activities imbued with deep sense of unreality Self-evaluation is real – and can involve L2
D. “If a student works, they will improve”Quantity as a measure of quality Tests use quality – how good a student is at … This is difficult to measure accurately, and creates hierarchy of power Hypothesis/observable fact in the classroom The amount of work a student does is a fair reflection of what they learn during the class If a student does little, they learn little, if they do a lot, they learn a lot Quantity is easy to measure Attendance/speaking English/reports/reading Can be done by the student Gives student control over own learning Promotes responsibility Student is aware of involvement in class and can choose to change Student controls grade Can choose grade based on how much is done Continuous evaluation If ongoing grade is too low during semester, can go back and do extra work before end of semester Testing will not stop because I have written this paper Know how to test as well as possible Know the limitations of testing Use it to do what you want to do Know when not to use testing When you don’t want to achieve what testing achieves, look for/create something else. What type of teaching can best implement this type of evaluation? Plain Pair Group Teaching (Plain PGT) is designed to put in practice what has been presented in this paper The Art of Precise UncertaintyAll test scores are approximate. It is important to know just how much approximation is built into any test we use, otherwise we risk making assertions based on a test score which the test makers themselves consider incorrect. There are two ways of looking at test error: (a) When can I say that a student’s score represents their “true” score? – Standard error of measurement (SEM) (b) When can I say that one student’s score is higher or lower than another student’s score? – Standard error of difference (SEdiff) There are two (or three) levels of confidence, i.e how many times can I be wrong in comparing a student’s (a) or students’ (b) scores and still say “it doesn’t matter”. 1 Standard error = 67% i.e. I will be wrong one time in three. 2 Standard errors = 95% i.e. I will be wrong one time in twenty. 3 Standard errors = 99% i.e. I will be wrong one time in a hundred For each test purpose, we need to judge how many times we can make a mistake in evaluating a student and still say “that is acceptable”. For example if we say being wrong for 33 students in 100 is unjust, then we need to choose a 95% level of confidence - where we will still make a mistake for 5 students in 100 – or higher (99%) if absolutely necessary. TOEFL (scores 300-670) 1 SEM = +/- 14 points (from test booklet) (the following are a personal guestimate by statistical extrapolation) 2 SEM = +/- 28 points 1 SEdiff = +/- 19 points 2 SEdiff = +/- 38 points 3 SEdiff = +/- 49 points This means we cannot confidently tell the difference (at 95% confidence) between students whose real score may be 500 but will score between 462 or 538. Anywhere between 462 & 538 is “the same score”. In addition, in comparing 100 students whose ‘real’ score is 500, 5 will score down to 451 or up to 549 - and one will still be beyond those scores. NB This is what happens when we have a ‘cut-off point’ on TOEFL scores for inclusion and exclusion e.g. for a scholarship, often with a difference of one or two points. We have almost no chance of avoiding injustice.
|
|
|
© William Plain 1990-2024 (print); 2005 - 2024 (website)
|