quote: Assigning competitive grades affects teachers' behavior in five basic ways: 1) it turns teachers into students' opponents, 2) it justifies inadequate teaching methods and styles, 3) it trivializes course content, 4) it encourages methods of evaluation that misdirect and inhibit student learning, and 5) it rewards teachers for punishing students.
quote: To assign grades, teachers must become critics whose focus is negative, always seeking errors and finding fault with students' work. Moreover, students must be compared with one another, because there is no accepted standard for a given letter grade. A performance that earns an A in one classroom could earn a C in another classroom because of differences in the teachers' standards or in the composition of the two classes.
quote: When judging the relative merit of students' performances takes precedence over improving their skills, few students can feel good about their accomplishments. Only one student can be the best; the rest are clearly identified as less able. Comparative grading ensures that, unlike children in Lake Wobegon, half of the students will be below average.
quote: When students fail to achieve course objectives, whose responsibility is it - the teachers' or the students'? Current grading practices put the onus squarely on the students. Teachers can use the most slipshod of teaching methods, discover that many students do not understand the material, and then assign grades accordingly. Current grading practices do not encourage teachers to help students improve, because only the students are blamed when they fail to learn.
If every student achieved all the objectives of a given course, every student would earn an A - an unacceptable state of affairs in the current view. Thus teachers are reinforced for using methods that ensure that some students will not succeed. For example, instruction is often provided in a unidirectional manner, as in a lecture, and interaction between the lecturer and the students is discouraged. Moreover, teachers often create conditions that inhibit students from challenging them or asking questions. Most people find it difficult to sit and listen to someone else talk for long periods of time. Those students who can tolerate that situation best will tend to receive higher grades.
quote: Mandatory grading encourages teachers to evaluate their students in ways that do not promote critical thinking and long-term retention. For example, teachers of large classes may assign grades based on students' ability to memorize facts. Tests based on factual information are simple and quick to score, but they do not foster critical thinking.
Pressure to perform well often causes students to attend only to "material that will be on the final." Their behavior in preparing for a test depends on the nature of the test. If they believe that the test will require knowledge of isolated facts, most students will try to memorize isolated facts (which will quickly be forgotten). Students develop learning styles that they expect to yield good grades. They quickly learn that the operational definition of a course objective is "what appears on the final exam."
quote: Some teachers feel proud when a high percentage of their students fail. They want others to believe that a high failure rate signifies a difficult course and an intelligent teacher. To a large extent, they succeed.
quote: Teachers and students are all victims of a competitive grading system. Competitive grading creates a conflict of interest for teachers: improving students' learning versus judging the relative merit of their academic performance. As long as teachers are forced to make comparative judgments, they cannot focus single-mindedly on the improvement of students' learning. Indeed, under the competitive grading system, teachers are not required to help every student learn, but they are required to judge every student. Judgment is mandatory; improvement is optional.
I feel that this professor has hit the nail square on the head, and that most of my annoyances with schools (very little/no discussions; no time to think, only to listen and accept; etc...) would be solved by switching to a system with no grading. Of course, I think good teachers would still be the same problem it is today (that there aren't that many of them), but who knows, maybe this would help teachers much more too.
The only thing I tend to wonder about from this paper is, do teachers really benifit from their students recieving low grades? I know the blame will still be on the student, and that if too many kids are doing well in your class it "must be too easy". But I don't know if the majority of the class failing would benifit the teachers anymore than if the students recieved average grades.
Anywho, food for thought. I found it really interesting, and would absolutely love it if such a system was implemented. Please, throw in your two cents.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a feeling that without the pressure of being graded, most students wouldn't do any work. And then they'd really not learn anything.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some teachers feel proud when a high percentage of their students fail. They want others to believe that a high failure rate signifies a difficult course and an intelligent teacher. To a large extent, they succeed.
I actually get really depressed when a large number of students fail my tests. My mother won't talk to me on the phone any more when I'm grading tests. Nice bell curves make me very happy.
Edit: Natural bell curves, not forced bell curves.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh, plenty of the work I do doesn't help me a whole lot. Of course I'm not going to do it if I don't have to. And I have voluntarily done problem sets in order to understand the material better.
I don't like the idea that some students have to fail, although I'd have to say that competitive grading tends to help me rather than hurt me. I don't have a serious problem with grading, but I do agree that some of the burden ought to be on the teacher. Which is why I'm glad that the engineering college at ASU has mandatory evaluations for every teacher...
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like the whole thing is a forced argument of a student who doesn't like his grades.
I have NEVER met a teacher who was PROUD his students failed. I have met teachers who were proud that their classes were tough, because it forced students to actually learn something, but that is a different kettle of fish.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Kwea. When I grade papers, I look to see that the students grasped the concepts I taught, and mark accordingly. If ALL of them didn't get the concepts, then I go back and cover it in class, because then it was clearly a fault in my teaching. However, if only a small percentage didn't get the concepts, then I'll write more detailed notations on their graded papers, to help them.
Whether they choose to read them is entirely up to them, though.
I always make a speech at some point in every semester to the effect of, "I don't give you grades; you earn them. Whether they are good or bad, you earn them. I will help you as much as I can, but you are the one who has to put in the work in order to get the grade."
A system involving no grades will only work in a situation where all students are extraordinarily self-motivated and responsible. I would actually have trouble in a system with no grades; I need the driving force of deadlines and goals in order to get things done. A no-grade system might work for a very few people, but it most certainly would not work for everyone. And, I don't think it necessarily reflects poorly on those for whom it wouldn't work; everyone has a different working style.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Moreover, students must be compared with one another, because there is no accepted standard for a given letter grade. A performance that earns an A in one classroom could earn a C in another classroom because of differences in the teachers' standards or in the composition of the two classes.
This is only partially true. In my experience, in public grade school, there IS a huge difference in the content of classes and teacher expectations but the competitive grading won't solve that. In college there were differences in not only content but also teacher delivery and availability. I had a horrible professor for a Shakespeare class who was close-minded and unavailable for office hours. Other people had a different professor, who was cool and fun, and they got more out of it than I did, even though we got the same grade.
quote: Some teachers feel proud when a high percentage of their students fail.
That's just insane.
quote:I know the blame will still be on the student, and that if too many kids are doing well in your class it "must be too easy".
That's not true at all. I set standards for my kids that are pretty high. If they ALL rise to meet the challenge, then they all do well, not because my class was too easy, but because they were all motivated to do well or the material was interesting or just because I kicked butt on the lesson. I will say, I've never had it happen, but it could. Most of the kids who fail my class do so because they simply refuse to do the work.
As far as competitive vs traditional grading, here is my opinion. They are both incomplete. Traditional grading is where minimum standards are met and the grade given is a reflection on how well those standards are achieved. But what do you do for a kid who meets the minimum standards for an A and another who blows the A out of the water? Do you give the kid who scored an A less just because someone else did better? Do you just load the amazing kid with a ton of extra credit?
Here is what I do. They both get an A on that assignment but on the next assignment the higher kid gets higher standards next time or gets out of the next assignment all together. I do the same thing for a kid who does not reach the minimum level but improves too much to ignore. If every kid came in to class on the same level, traditional grading works ok but that is never the case. Individual grading is required. There is a minimum standard (in my case basic 7th grade curriculum) but I have many kids who have surpassed that and many kids who may not reach it this year. I don't give all the kids who are above a 7th grade level an A; I just make their personal expectations higher. I don't fail every kid below a 7th grade level; I give them smaller goals and grade them on improvement and effort. I don't have anything formal or set in concrete about this. When I grade work, I first look to see if they did what was asked and then I decide if this the best that particular kid can do, and I grade accordingly.
This grading system works for me in 7th grade language arts. I realize that other subjects are much more cut and dry and that some people just don't have time with 200 students in their classes to do this (so don't slam me). I am just sharing what works for me. I think this would be harder in college where professors don’t get a chance to get to know their students and besides, college grading should be different anyway. Failing to meet standards in college should be more cut and dry since students are a more even playing field, if not academically, then at least motivationally. But grades ARE necessary. I hate it when people say we should get rid of the traditional grading system altogether; we just need to modify it.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a feeling that without the pressure of being graded, most students wouldn't do any work. And then they'd really not learn anything.
And that's a large part of the problem. Almost everyone thinks this, but it's not actually true.
Kids, or at least the ones that are not physically and/or mentally deprived, love to learn. It one of the central parts of their nature. Well, that is, until the methods and structure we use to teach them crushes this love out of them.
edit: Here's a good source for what I'm talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some teachers feel proud when a high percentage of their students fail.
Yes, I also don't agree with that.
quote: I have NEVER met a teacher who was PROUD his students failed.
Neither have I. At least, as far as I know.
quote: Other people had a different professor, who was cool and fun, and they got more out of it than I did, even though we got the same grade.
See, I sort of have a problem with that. Right now the math teacher I have is a terrible teacher, who gives no extra credit. The other math teacher for the course teaches the content very well, and gives extra credit. I don't think things like that should be allowed to go on (although this doesn't really pertain to the no grades argument, it's something important).
A lot of these comments it seems, have been based around the idea that learning and that stuff we do in school each day is the same thing. That is only partially true. There is learning in the sense of being presented new information, and then retaining that information, and then there is learning in the sense of being presented a topic or question that challenges you to think with imagination, and maybe decide on what you think is right, and be able to support your opinion/answer.
As you may know, the former, we do in school all the time. The latter, however, we very, very, very rarely do.
As for "kids won't do the work if there's no grades", I don't think that is true. I think that point is thought of in the sense of how normal school works right now. Which would not be the same as how school would work without grades. Whenever I don't feel like doing work, it's because the work is either boring, dry, or has not been taught to me well at all. Although grades ARE the motivation to complete the work, this problem could be solved altogether by giving me work that makes me think, and that encourages me to learn.
quote: As far as competitive vs traditional grading, here is my opinion. They are both incomplete. Traditional grading is where minimum standards are met and the grade given is a reflection on how well those standards are achieved. But what do you do for a kid who meets the minimum standards for an A and another who blows the A out of the water? Do you give the kid who scored an A less just because someone else did better? Do you just load the amazing kid with a ton of extra credit?
That's a very good point. I think the problem behind all of it though, is the fact that you only HAVE to do the minimum standards for an A. There is no incentive to do more. It wastes your time when there is other work to complete, and if you understand enough for the tests, there's no reason to try and learn any more.
quote: Here is what I do. They both get an A on that assignment but on the next assignment the higher kid gets higher standards next time or gets out of the next assignment all together. I do the same thing for a kid who does not reach the minimum level but improves too much to ignore.... I don't give all the kids who are above a 7th grade level an A; I just make their personal expectations higher. I don't fail every kid below a 7th grade level; I give them smaller goals and grade them on improvement and effort. I don't have anything formal or set in concrete about this. When I grade work, I first look to see if they did what was asked and then I decide if this the best that particular kid can do, and I grade accordingly.
Do you give all the kids who are above a 7th grade level, and meet all the requirements an A? I'm just not 100% clear on what you are saying. Because if not so, that shouldn't be. If one kid finds the class very easy, and does all the required work of what would earn an A in the class with everyone, the kid should get an A, no matter how much better he COULD be doing. Which is where you come in, like you said, and raise his personal expectations (or even move him to a harder class).
It does sound like a lot of you folks are really great teachers though (wouldn't expect any less here on the 'rack! ).
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is a general question on the "children love to learn" thing. I always liked to learn - more than half of the many books I read when I was little were educational in nature, usually about science or nature, but also history and government-related humanities.
But that was just general acquisition of knowledge. I did love it, but I didn't like the work that came in learning to apply it. The obvious examples are things like arithmetic - there's almost no way I've found other than practice to gain speed and accuracy. And I hated practicing math. Yet, once I had done it, I was able to do more word problems, which I loved doing.
I'm not trying to contend that competitive rewards work or are the best way if they do work. I really have no idea if that's the case. But how do you motivate kids to do the drudge work which makes it possible to progress to higher, more fulfilling learning?
quote:When I grade work, I first look to see if they did what was asked and then I decide if this the best that particular kid can do, and I grade accordingly.
I had a teacher try this on me. My high school required American Government and had no advanced class for it. In order to make the class such that most students could or would pass it, it was ridiculously easy for me and many other more advanced students. Our teacher told us she dropped the lowest grade each semester. At the time of the last test, I had a 105 average (there was extra credit on each test). This meant I had literally gotten nothing wrong all semester.
The last test was about states and their capitals. We had to write out all the states and their capitals. Spelling counted, and there was no partial credit.
I didn't study for this test, because it wasn't something I felt the need to commit to memory and because it couldn't hurt my grade. I got about 45 right if spelling weren't counted, but ended up getting a 50% on the test.
My government teacher knew exactly what I had done. She tried to make me retake the test, saying, "I'm not sending someone to UVA who doesn't know all the states and capitals." She told me until I got a 100, I wouldn't pass her class.
Of course, I'm stubborn and knew enough to know she couldn't pull that off. I never retook it, although she kept asking me when I would. I thought it was entirely unfair of her to put a requirement on me and not on the rest, and I refused to play along with her.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't. I mean, maybe if we changed our whole paradigm of education--and our society--from the ground up--but that's not going to happen.
Squicky, do I recall correctly that at some point you taught? I seem to think so, but I'm not sure.
In my experience, all those pie in the sky ideas of how kids really love to learn simply do not bear out in the real world. Some kids do. Most of us here did--which is why we love to spend time debating and reading and writing, and we assume that everyone else is really like us. They aren't. When these ideas are implemented into schools, they always fail.
The school I teach at began its life as a K-12 school that was going to put in all the most avant-garde pedagogical principles into effect. It had multi-age grouping, narrative grades instead of letters (which simply described what a person had learned), instead of classrooms we had "neighborhoods," with no walls, no textbooks, and sofas in the "hearth" of each neighborhood. The approach was a Montessori-style let the kids follow upon their interests, and the teachers--oops, Learning Leaders--were really more like experts the kids could come to when they were ready to learn something. It was an unmitigated disaster. Less than ten years after its birth, walls have been built (sometimes in awkward places due to the crazy architecture of the school), textbooks have been bought, courses have been mapped out, and letter grades are kept. (And the school, which was formerly rated C by the FCAT grades, has been an A school for four consecutive years.)
When I arrived there, I could always pick out the kids who had been in the school before the change. If there was a kid who was disrespectful, you could count on it to be one of those kids. (And of course, I want respect because I want to teach the kids to be good little cogs, because, after all, that's all I care about. Oh, also, when I see a kid doing something dangerous and tell him to stop, I want to be listened to. But looking out for their safety is really secondary. I'm all about the cogs.) If there was a kid with absolutely no math skills, you could be sure it was one of the kids who had been there back when.
I also placed one of my own daughters in a Montessori preschool because she was having problems in regular preschool. It was a wonderful solution behavior-wise, but as for the whole, "it's all here and she can decide what she wants to learn and at what pace" approach, it really didn't pan out. She didn't want to learn anything. She wanted to play with playdough or sand. For a year and a half, she spent close to eight hours a day playing with playdough or sand. I suppose we would still be waiting now for her to develop her own interest in counting or reading. *shrug*
I'm not saying that some people aren't like that. I'm like that. I love to learn. But we're naive when we assume everyone is. I've taught for eleven years, perhaps 1500 students, and those fanciful ideas just ain't true.
Now, someone could argue that it's because their love of learning has been stultified by bad teaching. My experiences would argue otherwise, but whatever. If this is true, you would have to change education--and society--from the ground up. And for what? A theory? What flaws will we only discover afterward?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And that's a large part of the problem. Almost everyone thinks this, but it's not actually true."
"Kids, or at least the ones that are not physically and/or mentally deprived, love to learn. It one of the central parts of their nature. Well, that is, until the methods and structure we use to teach them crushes this love out of them."
Well, I am in the middle on this one. I have worked in both graded and ungraded schools. My experience has been that the grades do not necessarily motivate students who are uninterested in learning.
Neither do ungrades.
Some students just don't give a hoot, and not necessarily because they are damaged or deficient in some way. Sometimes, they just want to play in the sand.
It is interesting to me when theories are put forth, such as cooperative learning. Everyone thinks, "Ooh, good idea, and what great research you have done! I am going to put my desks in groups of four."
When I ask students how they like their desks, groups of four is resoundingly shouted down. The arrangement of choice is the horseshoe or circle. (this is all my experience, not necessarily anyone else's.)
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kids, or at least the ones that are not physically and/or mentally deprived, love to learn. It one of the central parts of their nature. Well, that is, until the methods and structure we use to teach them crushes this love out of them.
I don't know if I still count as a kid at age 20, but I definately do love to learn. I love to read fiction and non-fiction and anytime I get curious about a subject I research it online. However, I definately need pressure in a classroom in order to learn the material. Even in subjects that I'm interested in, I tend to need that deadline of a test or paper in order to get things done. If I was unconcerned about grades, I would definately have gotten less out of my education. Through the pressure associated with grades, I've found myself interest in subjects that I had never found interesting before. I've also learned things that I think are useful to know but not that interesting and so I never would have researched them on my own. If I had never had grades in my education, I'm certain I would still have learned a great deal on my own but I'm also certain I would be worse off for it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps what it boils down to is finding some flexibility within the system - acceptance, encouragement, support and expectation - from students, teachers (and the @!%$*& administration) to learn and teach in the ways that work best for them.
At some point, this world demands that we learn to work in a group setting, as well as individually. Our group work is "graded" by our peers as well as the person/people in charge.
At some point, we are held accountable by our superiors for work done (and done correctly and well, with preferably little to no waste of time and materials) - whether in school or on the job. We receive grades (and or pay) according to how well we completed the assignment, following the guidelines and directions set forth.
At some point, our lives demand creativity and thinking out of the box. This can be stifled, unless there are oportunities for problem-solving using a variety of approaches.
I think people - all people - both need and deserve opportunities to learn in all these ways. To try and succeed, to try and fail, to learn and grow.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"At some point, this world demands that we learn to work in a group setting, as well as individually. Our group work is "graded" by our peers as well as the person/people in charge."
I completely agree! I just donl't think they like it as much as everyone assumes, and some kids have an extremely hard time learnign that way.
Funny, I put the desks in a horseshoe, and have a sense of order and peace(feng shui??)
The kids say the same thing.
We still do group and partner activities, but their home base is in the horseshoe. (also, much less under-the-desk kicking.
And another thing.
Cooperative learning should be done across the board, if it is done, and TAUGHT. Many teachers think there will be magic that happens when the kids work in a group, but they need to learn, and quite specifically, how.
One school teaches only cooperatively, (The Center School)but they spend the first six weeks of the school year learning to work together.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to go to a method of online courses with live homework help online available to all students. Work at your own pace. Slam that ball out of the park.
Kids could do this at home (homeschooling, like today) or at a public school building. Parents and kids could have input into which online courses worked the best for them. Accreditation of online courses by various private accreditation companies (sort of like UL listing for electrical products) would be one way to insure good quality. Grades or standardized test scores would still exist, but now instead of a kid being compared with other kids, it's like a video game, you're trying to make the highest score you can in against the computer.
It still requires discipline and curriculum. You don't get to just skip arithmetic if you don't care for it. You do get to shop around and find an arithmetic learning program you like that works for you.
Stuff like athletics, that can't be done online, would be handled with play groups, little league, soccer leagues, and so on, sort of like homeschooled do kids now.
We don't have to rewrite the whole education system from the ground up. It can arise and grow naturally out of homeschooling today.
Live homework help online is a very cool thing. Students bring tutors their questions, and the tutors basically ask leading questions to take students through the process of finding an answer. Tutors don't give answers, they guide the students to coming up with the answers themselves, starting at whatever level the student understands now.
It's an intense learning experience. I really think it's how I would prefer to learn any subject. It may not work for every student, but it's so exciting and empowering for so many students that I definitely think it has a big place, in the future, among the educational options that students and parents will have, from which to choose. If it works as well as I suspect it will work, then it will grow by leaps and bounds.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's about time somebody that ISN'T a high school student said something about this.
My AP English teacher was actually talking about how she didn't want to give us an exam. "What's the point in asking you names and dates of characters if you miss the point of the book?" I think she was right. I get a lot mroe out of reading a book for the story and not the specifics. If I enjoy the book, I'll read it again. My Ender's Game is barely recognizable because it's gone virtually everywhere with me. But books like The Scarlet Letter... I had a hard enough time understanding the book- I'm not one for languages. The story was genius- same with the ideas and morals behind it. But I failed the test because I couldn't understand what the teacher was asking for.
My English teacher says she's in favor of "alternative assessments," where we demonstrate what we've learned- not something based on a standard set by the school board, half of whom have never even learned the things we're learning. That way, if we've learned something different from a course than someone else, we're not punished because it wasn't what the teacher thought we were "supposed" to learn. If that makes any sense.
We've had quite a few discussions on this topic in my English and Physics class. Mostly based on the fact that our valedictorian and salutatorian are .0001% apart in their grades. They've both decided to say "Screw the system" and stop with all the competition. THey actually put together a petition to have more than one valedictorian, so in cases like this, the salutatorian isn't denied scholarships and things like that because he was .0001% behind the valedictorian. Especially because with weighted classes being taken into consideration, people who take unweighted classes like art, band, computers, and other things are being PUNISHED- their GPA drops because they got a 100% and 6 110%s instead of seven 110%s. Again, if that makes sense. So if your classes aren't all weighted, you're punished. But if your classes ARE all weighted, you're punished due to the exam exemption policy that in order to exempt, you have to have a 90% BEFORE the weight is added(it's a 10% weight). Which I thought was the point of weighting classes- they're HARD! But that's another story. Don't even get my started.
So that's my two cents, from a high school perspective.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, There are schools which do this already. I want o say in Arizona? California? I read something about it a while ago. I have a new Palm Pilot. I love the dea of kids having them, too, and beaming me their work. I always did love TNG.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kids, or at least the ones that are not physically and/or mentally deprived, love to learn. It one of the central parts of their nature. Well, that is, until the methods and structure we use to teach them crushes this love out of them.
I don't know if I still count as a kid at age 20, but I definately do love to learn. I love to read fiction and non-fiction and anytime I get curious about a subject I research it online. However, I definately need pressure in a classroom in order to learn the material. Even in subjects that I'm interested in, I tend to need that deadline of a test or paper in order to get things done. If I was unconcerned about grades, I would definately have gotten less out of my education. Through the pressure associated with grades, I've found myself interest in subjects that I had never found interesting before. I've also learned things that I think are useful to know but not that interesting and so I never would have researched them on my own. If I had never had grades in my education, I'm certain I would still have learned a great deal on my own but I'm also certain I would be worse off for it.
I agree with this, however....
I can't learn on my own. I've tried, I'm a relatively bright girl, I'm interested in tons of things, I get perfect grades and I can't learn on my own. I need the structure, I need due dates, and I need grades to make me work.
"Kids love to learn" is true in my case. I do. But loving to do something and actually doing it are completely different. I've tried for years to teach myself things without the structure of a classroom. I'm consumed with jealousy when I see my boyfriend who teaches himself things all the time. I try to do it and I can't. Giving myself a date I need to get things done by doesn't work for me because there aren't any consquences to it. I need grades to provide the motivation. Maybe you don't, but please don't generalize from yourself to all kids, everywhere.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hamson, I do give A's. The kids in my Pre-Advanced Placement class are all bright and most are pretty motivated. When I tell them the minimum standard, it is usually for a 70. Then they have to do more to get a higher grade. If they fail to meet that requirement in this advanced class, they fail. Then I grade the kids based on their personal growth and acheivement. Language Arts is subjective though so it is easier to do here. And I don't do it on every assignment obviously. Kids in my regular class are of varying levels and most are totally unmotivated (with a few exceptions). I have more behavior problems in this class than in the other too. These kids also get A's but it is usually the kids who do all their work. If they are below a 7th grade level, they can still pass if they show improvement and effort, but they won't get an A.
Dagonee, you had a loser teacher. Not only did she give you a stupid menial task but she did not follow through on her threat. I don't work that way (at least I hope not). Besides, I don't broadcast that I grade that way. The individual kid knows the quality and effort I expect in order to do well. That is just different for each kid.
I don't like the idea of a completely online system at all. That would be great in addition to other learning methods but I think kids need to interact with others, not just a computer, in order to learn. It seems to me, it would be incredibly easy to slack off too.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MandyM, the online tutor is a real live person working with them in intense one-on-one interaction, when the student is prompted with leading questions and has to come up with answers on his own. Tutors will work example problems that are similar to the homework problems students need help with, if necessary, but mostly just prompt with leading questions, and say things like "I see something wrong in that step, check that part again" to guide students in solving a problem. Many of the students are thrilled with the way it works, saying things like "I finally understand now! I did it myself! This makes sense to me now." It's a way of interacting that a teacher of 30 students would not really have time to do. I think that it fills a great need.
The lectures and problem sessions readily can be pre-recorded on dvd or built into software.
I guess the slackers would have to go to the school building each day and have teachers or proctors watching them log in and do their work, but I think the motivation of having a "normal" speed for each course, and having each section's assignments due before you can progress to the next level would work for many students, with parents' help. I also think the huge plus of getting to work from home might be a great motivator for some students. In other words, if you don't progress well enough at home, you have to go to school.
I do agree that having a continual interaction with one parent or teacher who knows you and can monitor your progress is a benefit. Kids from troubled homes also benefit greatly from the sanity of school. So I don't believe in remaking the system from the ground up, and suddenly changing everything. I think it will be a natural progression, but that this kind of learning will have a much larger part to play in the future.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwolv. I'm the same way. I find I need deadlines and tangible rewards to really motivate efficient learning. And I find, at least with my kids and my clients, whom I am sometimes called on to teach, learning is far more quickly achieved when there is a certain amount of external accountability. My 3 yr old is the only one I've noticed just seems to sop up learning independent of any pressure. I suspect that as she gets older, that may change, as she discovers that sometimes learning is hard work.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But online school still keeps kids from having and learning from interactions with each other. They will not learn to work and play well with others. It is the same problem involved with some homeschooling situations.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:blacwolv. I'm the same way. I find I need deadlines and tangible rewards to really motivate efficient learning. And I find, at least with my kids and my clients, whom I am sometimes called on to teach, learning is far more quickly achieved when there is a certain amount of external accountability. My 3 yr old is the only one I've noticed just seems to sop up learning independent of any pressure. I suspect that as she gets older, that may change, as she discovers that sometimes learning is hard work.
And that just says it all for me right there.
- "Kids love to learn until the system crushes it out of them." - "Well, I've been through the system and I can't accomplish things without external rewards. Neither can my kids who've been in the system. Only my child who is not yet in the system is like you describe, but she'll learn that learning isn't fun with time."
---
I'm not just saying this stuff. check out my external link. Look at the reams of research charting the relationship between systems of external rewards and punishments and motivation. They not only fail in increasing quality and quantity of behavior, but they actually harm it, often fatally.
It will take a revolution in our mythological conception of education, but isn't it worth it to stop failing so darn badly?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about my children who were not yet in the system?
EDIT: And what about the children who started their educational career at my school back when it was still doing the "new paradigm" thing, and didn't go off seeking knowledge in large numbers, and didn't, as a rule, exhibit a love of learning in numbers greater than the norm?
It's spouted as a truism, Squick, but it ain't. It describes some people--and, in particular, it describes those who go into pedagogy, and then incorrectly project their own attitudes onto everyone else--but it just isn't a universal truth.
And kids who love to learn may still not choose to learn some things that they need to. They are likely to stick with the areas they like or find easier, or enjoy the most success in, and avoid the ones that offer less instant gratification. But these other areas of learning may be necessary.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your developmentally disabled, non-infancy adopted children?
It's not just a truism, it's the result of years of scientific research. It's the nature of the large majority of children to be naturally motived towards exploring and acquiring knowledge. The effects on external reward/punishment systems of motivation (i.e. destroying it) is also well documented.
You seem to be under the misconception that I'm advicating some sort of laisez faire system where you just let children do whatever they want. I'm not. At my most basic, I'm saying that the assumption that children don't want to learn and have to forced to be the effective methods of external rewards and punishments is fundamentally flawed in several places and makes a terrible basis for construction an educational system.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm teaching my 3 year old niece number theory. She can multiply, not great, but she can do it. She's learned not by pouring over her times tables and being rewarded or punished based on her performance, but by playing a game with her uncle. And she likes doing it.
It's not one-size-fits-all. The road to knowledge is different for every child. But just assuming that they hate going down that road and setting up a system designed to force them down it based on your way doesn't work. Assuming that the thing that matters is not how you present the material, but rather the punishment/reward system you train them with is a horrible way to think about it.
Well, it always works this way, except when it doesn't neh? (btw, what do you consider infancy?)
-o-
Note that I edited my post to include a reference to the school I work at, and how it began life as a "try all the trendy stuff" kind of place.
In my personal (experience-based) opinion, pedagogical research is virtually necessarily a sham, and here's why: nobody will publish you if you're merely agreeing with the conventional wisdom. Where's the novelty in that? You have to be tilting at windmills, you have to be reforming things, you have to be changing the landscape. The College of Education establishment rewards calls for paradigm shift. (Heck, look how trendy that buzzword has gotten in the last twenty years or so!)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying that nothing can be improved, and advocating for the teaching methods of the 1950s. I'm not. In fact, I have not yet made a post on this thread addressing the original thesis. I've addressed the idea that *sometimes* kids need to be forced to go down a given road, because they won't go down it at all otherwise. Should we try to make it fun? Sure. Should we try to minimize drudgery? Sure.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, Are you asking me to consider developmentally disable children as what should work in a normal kids situation? Because yeah, developmentally disabled children don't necessarily act like their non-disabled peers. They are often...developmentally disabled.
Imagine, at a school with teachers like you convinced that it's not going to work, new theories didn't work. How astounding! Also, the system you described does sound pretty empty-headed, which doesn't acutally mean that all new ideas are the same.
---
Again, what I'm basing what I'm saying on is 40+ years of hard scientific research about he relationship between motivation and external reward/punishment systems done by people on both sides of the theoretical issue. In fact, all of the early experiements were done by people looking to see how much better ad more often people would do things when they were rewarded/punished and were shocked when the answer they got was that quanitity and quality of the behavior they got were actually worse.
Edit: This generally seems very counterintuitive to people, which suggests to me that people may have some pretty wrong ideas about why people do things. But maybe what it really means is that the mounds of solid, consistent results are acutally incorrect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Icky, Are you asking me to consider developmentally disable children as what should work in a normal kids situation?
I'm saying the definition of developmentally disabled can get blurry, and even circular, pretty quickly. There isn't a line, it's more like a gradient. My kids struggle more than other kids their ages with many intellectual concepts. One the other hand, they both have somewhat advanced vocabularies for their age. Go figure. If you met my kids and interacted with them for a while, you likely would not think, "developmentally disabled." If you tried to teach them "bigger," "smaller," "more," "less," "older,"younger," "sooner," "later," etc, though, you likely would. I'm not denying that my kids are developmentally disabled; I'm pointing out that it's a broad category, and that a good fraction of the kids at my current school would likely fit that category, though not all are labeled that way. My point is that you would be surprised at how many kids do not, intrinsically love to learn. I think that's a generalization that is not borne out by contact with populations that have not already self-selected for its accuracy.
-o-
quote:Imagine, at a school with teachers like you convinced that it's not going to work, new theories didn't work. How astounding!
You are mischaracterizing me. Is it at all possible that I have tried a lot of the pedagogical innovations? The fact is, I have, and I have adopted many of them. But I take pedagogical "research" in general with an enormous grain of salt. In my own personal practice, I experiment and stick with the things I have success with, and abandon those which fail. What I don't think much of, however, is overhauling the whole system based on the theory du jour.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, 40+ years of solid, consistent results, even by people specifically setting out to prove it wrong. Not actually theory du jour.
And you know what, Icky, I take my work very seriously and it's kind of bothering me a little that you're dismissing what I'm saying with such ease, with the air of I don't know what I'm talking about or that I take this lightly. I think, though I could be wrong, that I've kind of established my self here as someone who often knows quite a lot about things. Well, this is one of the few areas that I really concentrate on knowing stuff. It's one of the very few I've no problem claiming I'm an expert in. Make of that what you will.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I take my work seriously as well, and I know quite a lot about it, and pedagogy is one place where we're going to come at this from opposite sides. You've been precisely as dismissive as you feel I'm being; so far, I've been taking it in stride.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In my experience, all those pie in the sky ideas of how kids really love to learn simply do not bear out in the real world. Some kids do. Most of us here did--which is why we love to spend time debating and reading and writing, and we assume that everyone else is really like us. They aren't. When these ideas are implemented into schools, they always fail.
Icarus,
At the risk of repeating earlier content, I wonder if perhaps you considered that this fact your stating is not the RESULT of the current education system, if not entirely, perhaps substantially. What I mean is, the education system in SF california where I was raised didn't place rewards on academic excellence the way that my Catholic HS did. I went to public k-8, and there was a HUGE difference in the way that possitive results flowed from achievement when I went to private school. Grades were a status symbol anyone could attain, and good grades garnered respect.
I realize this is an anecdotal thing, and my situation was not the norm, but why can't it be? I don't think only catholics are like this, I'm not catholic, and alot of the people in my school weren't rich, alot of them were of minority races, etc, and we all (well, many of us) were aware of the status implied by success in class.
In my public ed experience, my success in academics was socially unimportant, and often prompted jealousy and hurt feelings, and name calling from other kids. But looking back, this mostly had to do with my personality being very different from the norm. I think my point is that there ARE ways of creating positive associations with success and learning. Learning being the ultimate goal, success is just the measure. We can do this by encouraging a positive attitude toward success and toward the more real benefits of learning.
Maybe I am just hopelessly out of it, I probably am, but it seems that the current system just warehouses many kids, and doesn't really work; and when somethings broke, you HAVE to fix it somehow.
Edit: Ps. The only "personal" thing I wanted to add was that I don't want anybody getting defensive about this, its just a lay suggestion, which may or may not be relevent.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I have considered that. In fact, I specifically addressed that concern, with two examples.
Your comments are anecdotal, as are mine. Mine, however, are based on eleven-plus years of experience in the classroom, six years of experience as a parent, eleven years of watching my wife's experience in the classroom, and insight gleaned from the thirty or so years that each of my parents spent in the classroom.
Look, I'm not the advocate of traditional education in this thread. If you ever visited my classroom, you would not see the stereotypical classroom of yesterday. As I noted, I haven't actually addressed the initial post yet. What I am specifically objecting to is the truism that all (normal) kids are born loving to learn. That's just a feel-good generalization of the character of people here to people in general, and I have learned that just about nothing is basically true of all normal people.
EDIT: And, to further clarify, I don't object to trying new methodologies. I object to trying them uncritically, and to thoughtlessly rejecting all of the "old." I believe in trying new (and old) things and sticking with what works. Specifically, I object to the "let's throw everything out and begin again with a new paradigm approach," not because I unthinkingly defend the old, but because, while many new ideas I have researched, studied, and tried have panned out, many have not. And throwing everything out to jump on a bandwagon, especially when pedagogy (like politics) is unintentionally structured to reward those who find fault, is as likely as not to prove disastrous.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kids, or at least the ones that are not physically and/or mentally deprived, love to learn. It one of the central parts of their nature. Well, that is, until the methods and structure we use to teach them crushes this love out of them.
I think kids are interested in learning about what they're interested in.
What they're interested in may not be what they need.
Squick, I don't know that linking to an Amazon entry selling Kohn's book is very informative. I tend to agree with Icarus, because my experience has been very similar to what he's described.
Can you link to other (actual) articles supporting your position?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I object to trying them uncritically, and to thoughtlessly rejecting all of the "old." I believe in trying new (and old) things and sticking with what works. Specifically, I object to the "let's throw everything out and begin again with a new paradigm approach," not because I unthinkingly defend the old, but because, while many new ideas I have researched, studied, and tried have panned out, many have not. And throwing everything out to jump on a bandwagon, especially when pedagogy (like politics) is unintentionally structured to reward those who find fault, is as likely as not to prove disastrous."
I agree.
I like reading about "new" teaching methods. However, if you talk to enough veteran teachers, they will tell you the methods are not new at all, just made formal.
The thing many programs neglect to address is the personalities of the teachers. An example is inclusive teaching, which involves working closely with another person, and how this will magicaly cure all ills. The thing is, sometimes teachers hate each other, and do not work well together.
As a teacher, I tend to try new things. That is because I am a person who changes easily. I have seen teachers forced into doing things a different way, and it is very hard for them. They are good teachers the way they are. I wish these theories were presented more as a menu to choose from.
As a parent, I WANT my children to experience different styles of teaching, and different styles of grading. I do not rescue them from mean teachers or ineffective teachers. Why? Because that is life, we are human, and not everyone will ever fit into a pigeonhole.
And Squicky, you might want to read back through your words to see who is dismissing whom. Not only have you minimized Icarus' position, but you have belittled his children. That is how it felt to me when I read your words, though you may not have intended them that way.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of any kids I know or have known who aren't interested in learning. But I also can't think of any who are interested in learning EVERY subject. Therefore, I'd have to agree with Scott that kids are interested in learning about what they're interested in, and generally not so interested in learning about what they don't care about. The trouble with schools is that we expect and need all kids to learn certain subjects, whether they are interested in them or not.
Something to consider.... Extracurricular activities, including sports, music, drama, etc., are usually enjoyable to kids. They involve extensive learning. They also almost always entail competitiveness and high standards. I think this means that holding kids to such standards and grading them does not necessarily drive them to hate what they are learning. Instead it would have to be something particular about the way academic standards operate that is causing the problem.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we give enough options for kids who are not interested, or who don't do well in academics.
In this country, we say we do not want to weed people out, yet we do. We want to say everyone has an opportunity to go to college, but they don't.
I am seeing the system in Europe as more and more effective, where students stay on an academic track for a certain period of time(eighth grade?), and then have to pass a test to continue.
We have some trade schools here, but I think there is a stigma against them.There are also, often, academic tests kids have to pass to get in, which to me seems to miss the point.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how I feel about that system, Liz. I just can't make up my mind. (Though I think your point in general is a good one.)
Here in Orlando we get a *lot* of immigrants from England who move here specifically because their children are on the noncollege track there, and they want them to have the opportunity to go to college. (Bear in mind that there are a *lot* more colleges in the US, and that, if live here long enough before college, you will qualify for in-state rates at public universities.)
These kids are, by and large, very very weak. (I am not blaming them. They come here and are asked to do work their background did not prepare them for. They have also never been asked to do homework. I'm sure that if I asked them to do things their education had prepared them for, they would seem stronger.) So our low to average kids learn to do things that low to average kids in other countries--most other countries, I would venture--never do. Is that a good thing, though? Maybe. Maybe not--it leads to more frustration, maybe. (But, on the third hand, it seems more democratic to me, because we don't limit their lives as early. Why are all these British kids coming here?) So, as I say, I can't decide. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as an alternative point of view, mind you, not critique:
I love learning, and always have. During my school years, I was extremely socially inept. I was not good at sports; in fact, I hated them. I was, however, very, very good at school. Grades were very, very important to me. It was one of the few areas in which I was absolutely, undeniably good at something that was generally held to be valuable. I was competitive, and it was fun! Had there not been grades, I would've just been another one of the herd. It gave something to hold onto as a point of pride, in the same way that test scores do (look at the PSAT thread and tell me people don't hold their test scores as a point of pride).
To me, grades represent a concrete goal that kids can understand. In a system without grades, learning goals for students would require quite a bit more explication and clarification, something which I would definitely hesitate to toss onto the shoulders of our already-overworked, underpaid public school teachers.
In my opinion, if you want your children to learn in a grade-free environment, send to them to a private school that has that sort of environment.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(To Icarus) I know, I really can't either. At its worst, it is classist, At its best, though, it could be something.
I worked so long with "alternative" kids(flunking, behavior-emotional problems) that I am definitely seeing it from their perspective. They are, as they say in Massachusetts, "wicked smaht," but are quite clear that they do not give a hoot about academics, and would do very well in trades.
I also wish the time line of high school and college was not so set in stone. I see my niece, who had a couple bad years in high school, wants to be a good student, but is done for now as a senior.
There are lots of options for college, you are right. There is also that stigma, though. She feels like a failure already, and she is eighteen.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liz, I'm going to extrapolate from your last post [your last post before I started typing this one, that is], so please correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth at all.
I do think that there is an increasing push on all kids to go to college, and that there is definitely a stigma attached to trade schools. Unfortunately, I think the result of this is many students going to colleges who would really be much better served by going to trade school, or some other type of training. They attend college because they think that's what they're supposed to do. Then, they get to college, and realize that they can't keep up with the work, or that they don't have enough responsibility to manage their own academic career, or that they just aren't interested in anything that a college might teach. I don't think everyone should go to college. I hope this doesn't make me sound elitist, but I really have seen many people in struggling and failing their way through college because they think that's where they're supposed to go after high school.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(btw, what do you consider infancy?)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
