October 15th, 2010
|10:10 am - Not dumbing down but something more subtle|
I think the criticism of the British exam system by Mick Waters is largely accurate. But I think it's obscured by the use of the inaccurate term 'dumbing down'. I don't think exams have dumbed down, but they have been systematised.
So, for example, pick a subject, let's say a modern language. The old fashioned exams were not so systematic. You answered questions as well as you could using the language, and the examiner marked you impressionistically on your overall grasp of the language. In the modern system there are stock phrases and sentence forms you are marked on, and students are encouraged to learn these as boilerplate (that's how my kids were taught, and they did well in the exams). This type of exam is cheaper to mark, and easier to teach to. It is also financially lucrative for the examiners, who can create text books which concentrate not on mastering the subject but satisfying the marking system.
This is why increasing proportions of pupils get high grades. It's not dumbing down as such: it's improved technique, combined with a system which increasingly rewards technique. This is common where there is any system of grading or evaluation - if you set people hoops, they will get good at jumping through hoops. And as I say, the exam boards have a triple financial motive: the new type of exam is cheaper to administer, it's more attractive to the purchaser (schools, because they can get more grade As), and it provides a second source of income to the examiners (who are generally freelance) in creating exam guides and text books which schools must buy to learn the marking triggers.
What it doesn't do, in my opinion, is improve the quality of learning. I personally think this is quite a big problem, but when journalists call it dumbing down it makes people defensive.
Totally agree and in fact said as much on a lecture about rationalisation on Monday.
Another effect, which I think is again a function of people responding to evaluation systems, is that certain clever operators are rewarded for gaming the equivalency system. That is, the mapping of qualifications against each other is imperfect, as all systems are, so a head can produce a sudden artificial jump in school performance by swapping to a slightly easier but officially equivalent qualification. I personally think it's rather unscrupulous, but it does work.
Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-15-2010
I agree entirely.
And it's not just schools, it's universities too. My father was a lecturer, and I remember him remarking over a decade ago, 'We're not teaching students any more, we're teaching exams.'
I was just thinking it probably started as an attempt to remove subjectivity, and the impact of irrelevant factors like class or gender. But I think a new approach is needed which minimises the scope for prejudice but allows a more holistic evaluation of progress in a subject.
|Date:||October 15th, 2010 12:26 pm (UTC)|| |
Sage. I'm going to friend you so I can keep track of your posts. Don't feel obliged to friend back.
I think as livejournal becomes a little quieter there are more links between different users, which is great
I was thinking about this in relation to the intelligence type tests which you can train yourself in, for example with those little hand-held machines they have nowadays. With no preparation there might be a correlation between raw ability and your test result. But if you train yourself to get a better test result, that doesn't mean you have elevated your raw ability.
I linked to you today, by the way, if you're wondering why you're having a sudden influx.
this time I got an automated email about it, with a little pic of a robot, which hasn't happened before - I will unscreen FYI
I am perpetually shocked by how unprepared undergraduate students I meet at work are for any task that involves collating information from different places rather than looking for a single source that contains "the answer" (typical question: where can I find the marketing strategy of British Airways?) and I blame an entire 11-18 education system of rote learning to pass exams.
I am monitoring FoI at the moment at work and there are a few like this.
|Date:||October 15th, 2010 01:26 pm (UTC)|| |
I feel like this sort of systemic system playing is spreading from schools - I saw a lot of it at my last employer - concentrating on evaluation mechanisms rather than doing a good job and trusting this would allow you to jump through the hoops. In that particular case, a lot of it was people without an interest in IT doing IT management jobs because it pays well, so they would concentrate on the systems they could understand rather than the technology. Drove me insane.
I think there are particular generational problems with IT management - speaking as an older person - people get to management through a decades-long process, but a lot of people my age don't really get technology.
I'm not convinced. Take mathematics. I don't see how that has become less impressionistic over time - there was nothing terribly impressionistic about the cosine rule or integration by parts when I was sitting my exams - and yet university entrants have much lower levels of skill than they used to. This isn't just "back in my day we had to solve quadratic equations uphill both ways": university physics departments are now putting on extra maths courses just to get new entrants up to the level that they used to be able to assume on the basis of exam results. And that's despite increasing the required mathematics qualification to get into the course in the first place. They're not doing this for a laugh: they're doing it because a good secondary maths qualification is no longer a reliable indicator that someone knows how to differentiate a polynomial.
One of the reasons I don't think it's simple dumbing down is that my kids, and my nieces and nephews, seem smart and well educated to me.
I'm on uncertain ground about maths, though. I've never had to understand the syllabus in any job I've had to do. My brother is very good at maths, and his daughter seems to have inherited his aptitude, and she seems to know as much as he did at her age. But she might have given me a misleading impression.
I don't have any solutions either, except I think perhaps a change of attitudes starting at the top.