skh.pcola on March 31, 2007 at 7:40 pm said:

Now, if you mean teachers who drill students with practice exams and that sort of thing, I agree. That’s just sheer idiocy.

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.

Now, if you mean teachers who drill students with practice exams and that sort of thing, I agree. That’s just sheer idiocy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.