Koretz explains how schools are generally not very good at teaching higher order skills - such as critical thinking and problem-solving - because they are not only difficult to teach but they are difficult to test. Koretz gives examples such as how most high schools' science "experiments" are really "demonstrations," because they are "rigged" for the right answer, thereby disqualifying them as true experiments where outcomes are unknown.
Let us know what you think -
Low order bad, high order good! It seems to be forgotten by those that advocate the merits of higher order thinking skills that learning at this level comes on the back of a good deal of ground work in lower order skills. Lower order skills are still very necessary, need to be practised and are the foundation for progress to higher order skills. The notion that low order skills are just a Google away has been repeated so often it has acquired the status of a fact. There is nothing low order about using a search engine in a discerning manner, there is nothing low order about the dissection of a heart or a flower in a Bio class. Developing higher order thinking comes on the back of well developed learning cycles that include progression. Mature learners with their own highly developed pedagogy need (to cut the students a break) to understand that their learning journey nears completion but that of the student has just begun. Students need to experience the demonstrations and secured outcome experiments so that they are equipped with the skills necessary to carry out the high order investigations. This is a time consuming process and takes most of high school to complete. If you want student to think ‘think outside the box’ they first need to know what’s in the box. If their work is unconnected to the box, it will lack meaning and usefulness. In school we teach kids through learning cycles to connect the lower order skills to the higher order skills in a meaningful way so that their work has value, not random guess work, which is unconnected. higher order skills are ‘good’ they’re great, it’s the basis of human progress and achievement but only because they are connected.
John, a friend recently attended a high school science fair where a student actually Googled an answer to a question he had asked him on his mobile phone right there on the spot (which wasn't a difficult one, either, that was related to his exhibit). Argh! Will debaters start pulling out their mobiles to find an answer mid-debate? I think in our quest to incorporate the new realities of technology and globalization into schooling, we may be falling into a trap of another absolute or extreme stance, at least in conversations. Do I think Koretz was advocating skipping lower order skills or memorization in this video chat? No, I don't, but his message could be mis-construed - at least that's my take.
I taught tennis for many years and you can't play a match unless you know the basics. You won't get better without practice. On the flip side (supporting Koretz's intended point?), I witnessed so many students who could hit perfect strokes in
drills and then who fell apart when they had to put it all together in a real match.
I'd sometimes think, "How could this be the same student?" Think Koretz was warning us of the pitfalls of one kind of assessment. And aren't we short-changing students if we only assess them one way, or worse yet, if we only expose them to tennis drills without ever really playing the game?
Thanks for your thoughts - you may also find our recent post about copying of interest. You made me think of another post related to your comment that I'll post in the next week or two - have to dig for it.
appreciate the reply and your points are well taken. Look forward tor reading the related links you mentioned.
Brian, think there are a number of initiatives that are addressing this issue:
Check out Tony Wagner's book, The Global Achievement Gap. In it, Wagner cites some examples: College Learning Assessment (CLA); College and Work Readiness Assessment (CWRA); the ETS iSkills Tests; School-based Teacher-led Assessment Reporting System (STARS); among others.
There are also more inquiry-based assessments. You may want to check out http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/hacking-school-ratings-rankings-343.php and
Also, will digital portfolios begin to tranform assessments? What is the work that a student can produce outside of a test?
These are all examples but we are not there yet, for sure.
Can anyone share their experience with any of the above assessments or have other suggestions?
Interesting. Thought-provoking. Resonating.
But just one of many.
I get what we have to do. What I'd like to hear is someone suggesting specifics on how we do it.