because you’re not going to expect this. I like both Betsy Newmark and the Anchoress, but, well, let’s tackle Newmark first:
When College Board announced that they were adding a writing component to the SATs, critics alleged that there was no way to legitimately grade the writing of that many essays each year and that the test would devolve down into writing formulaic essays. Well, now an MIT professor has written a paper outlining what students need to do to game the test and present the illusion of good writing.
I have no debate with this. Anything that encourages the mindless five-paragraph essay (which I spent many hours railing against when I coordinated that ESL writing program) earns my ire. And I used to be a certified GED essay grader and have also graded essays for ETS; I know all about idiotic, formulaic, content-free writing.
But this is nonsense:
Here is an example from the paper to demonstrate how the student can get the facts wrong but still impress enough to get them a good grade.
And the Anchoress says much the same nonsense:
Good writing skills go hand-in-hand with good reading skills, and with critical thinking.
In an ideal world, yes–though in the real world, no (there are plenty of excellent writers with foggy brains who spout nonsense). In fact, her teacher friend, or rather those she was talking about, were correct:
Because essays are subjective, we’re not supposed to consider content in the grading
Exactly so. Determining the validity of the content of a history paper is the sole domain of the history professor. Writing assessment must assess only writing skills, or it’s not writing assessment. If the topic were an essay for a history exam, then absolutely, content is vital. But it isn’t a history exam (or a philosophy exam, or any topic exam): It’s the writing component of the SAT. It’s sole purpose is to rate writing proficiency.
Also, students are given a topic, which introduces yet another reason content cannot be used to rate writing proficiency on the SAT. What do you do with the student who shows an excellent grasp of history but cannot write his way out of a paper bag and the student who knows little history but is an excellent writer? If you’re evaluating writing proficiency, the better writer gets a higher assessment than the poorer writer, regardless of his grasp of history.
But then we have this:
I know this is true because a teacher pal of mine shared this story with me.
Well no, you don’t know anything, except that a person told you a story. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.
Rather, students are being taught “to the test,†and for that, neither thinking nor information need be clear.
Well no, that’s nonsense. Teachers aren’t teaching content in class, so to make up for it, they’re drilling students before tests. Teaching the content is teaching to the test.
This whole issue is first old, old, old news, and second, it’s a non-issue. If you want student writing to be assessed on content as well as form and rhetoric, then mandate area exams for topics. Otherwise, it’s not going to happen–because you’ll no longer be evaluating writing skills.
rory @ parentalcation says:
I am not sure I agree with you opinion of the 5 paragraph essay. Though it is obviously not the most creative way to write, following its guidelines should allow most average students to get a point across in an organized matter.
Incidentally, the USAF has adopted the 5 paragraph essay as its standard format to teach writing as well. They have even adopted it to use for speeches, briefings and classes.
Tell they what you are going to tell them.
Tell them.
Tell them again.
The Air Force investigates a lot of money in professional military education, and writing is a key component (majority) of the various schools.
March 29, 2007, 4:41 pmskh.pcola says:
Teaching “to the test” is pretty non-ambiguous. I generally agree with you, but your knee-jerk definition of the term makes no sense at all.
Here’s the distinction (or, at least, the best analogy that I can think of at the moment): You maintain that teaching “to the test” is simply teaching the subject material. I, and almost everybody else, posits that teaching “to the test” means teaching exactly the skills or material that has been on the test in the past. That seems fairly self-evident to me.
Now, here, at last (I wasted a paragraph), is the analogy: I don’t have one. I mean, I can think up some sports-type of “specific training versus general training” examples, but crap, man. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you honestly believe what you wrote?
I’ve had more than a couple of classes–and I’m in one right now–where the prof teaches to their own tests. They’ll emphasize specific varieites of problems to expect, or give hints that certain chapters are more important than others. Mayhaps this is a semantics/parsing issue? Dunno.
March 29, 2007, 9:20 pmrightwingprof says:
That’s exactly what teachers should be teaching: What will be tested. You have no way of knowing, of course, exactly what will or will not be on the exam, but you know what topics will be covered–and presumably if you’re aware of the curriculum you’re supposed to be teaching, you have an excellent idea what will or will not be on the exam. Now, if you mean teachers who drill students with practice exams and that sort of thing, I agree. That’s just sheer idiocy.
But if you know that, say, quadratic equations will be on the exam, teaching quadratic equations is doing your job. Having sensitivity exercises or doing art projects instead is abusing your job, and wasting taxpayer money.
March 31, 2007, 2:37 pmskh.pcola says:
Yessir, that’s what I meant. There’s a lot of that type of drilling done in places where achievement is measured via standardized testing.
March 31, 2007, 7:40 pmrightwingprof says:
Yessir, that’s what I meant. There’s a lot of that type of drilling done in places where achievement is measured via standardized testing.
That’s because they’re idiots–testing has nothing to do with it. If they were doing what they’re supposed to be doing instead of creating macaroni art, there would be no need to do that nonsense.
April 1, 2007, 5:22 am