[Edu-sig] An OLPC comment ("Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools")

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Laura-

That's a good sentiment to use testing to see how we the tester is 
succeeding at communicating. I totally agree with the benefit to any 
presenter of feedback about whether the audience gets what they are trying 
to present. Refining presentations and presentation skills is important.

On the other hand, textbook authors or other non-fiction authors refine 
their presentations all the time without "testing" readers. They use other 
means (peer review, editors, focus groups, direct feedback on previous 
editions by readers, and so on). Would you buy a non-fiction book if you 
knew after each chapter someone would quiz you for fifteen minutes so the 
author could maybe make that chapter better? As an adult, you'd probably 
buy another book.

A seemingly short ten minute test of a class of thirty uses up 300 life 
minutes, or five life-hours. Does a presenter have any clear right to 
those five life hours per test? Perhaps those life-hours could be spent 
more productively (like directly by the presenter in refining their 
presentation in other ways?) Personally I love written tests, or at least 
used to; so how the individual student experiences a test might vary, 
depending in part on attitude (and also a variety of other factors).

Also, consider, on a practical basis, what is most important to teach is 
often "attitude". That's why the suggestion is to only praise effort ("I 
saw you tried hard!") and, perhaps, incremental progress ("You're getting 
smarter every day!"). See for example:
   Five Reasons to Stop Saying "Good Job!"
   http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm

In the case of "Computer Programming for Everybody" the right attitude 
probably includes thinking you can understand some software component, or 
replace it, or make it better. For example, one thing that in the 1980s 
used to mark a good UNIX systems administrator was a willingness to 
consult the "man" pages for new commands; that was the only common thing 
about them in one study. It did not really matter how much they could 
recall about any command on a test.

How do you test for "attitude"? I would think most good teachers don't 
need a written test for attitude of a student -- and would not even trust 
a written test as they get a lot of feedback from reading body language. 
And they can get that body language feedback even while presenting (not 
afterwards).

Sure, you can test skills perhaps. You can test "aptitude". But how do you 
really test "attitude" on a practical basis, other than by being in a 
person's life and watching them in a variety of situations?

Of course, you could try to formalize this the way, say, a behavioral 
ecologist scores actions of monkeys in a troupe (one grooming behavior, 
one eating behavior, etc.) but is there really much value in that? It's 
not a very human way to relate to other humans. Sure, anthropologists may 
do it, but people trying to communicate and mentor? Seems like a bit of a 
distraction if done regularly.

Consider Gatto's more general comment on testing here, to see where the 
slippery slope of numerical grading heads:
   http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/18t.htm
"[I recommend to measure] performance with individualized instruments. 
Standardized tests, like schools themselves, have lost their moral 
legitimacy. They correlate with nothing of human value and their very 
existence perverts curriculum into a preparation for these extravagant 
rituals. Indeed, all paper and pencil tests are a waste of time, useless 
as predictors of anything important unless the competition is rigged. As a 
casual guide they are probably harmless, but as a sorting tool they are 
corrupt and deceitful. A test of whether you can drive is driving. 
Performance testing is where genuine evaluation will always be found. 
There surely can’t be a normal parent on earth who doesn’t judge his or 
her child’s progress by performance."

So, how about performance testing as an indicator kids are learning some 
specific skill? For computer programming for everyone, perhaps it could be 
to write a program that does some task, and watch them do it?  This is the 
kind of continual feedback one gets on presentations based on working with 
kids in the computer lab afterwards.

Also, does it really matter if kids are learning what anyone is 
specifically trying to teach them at the time? Why should it matter? Kids 
are "Learning all the Time", to quote John Holt:
   http://www.holtgws.com/learningalltheti.html
   http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Time-John-Caldwell-Holt/dp/0201550911
So what if they don't learn what you want them to know when you want them 
to know it? Surely, if the environment is interesting enough, they are 
learning something.

The need to test to ensure learning is a denial of people as learning 
creatures, who learn in their own ways, on their own timetables. Does a 
library give you a grade for each visit? Does a museum? Does your web 
browser? Does anyone deny libraries or museums or web browsers can be 
educational, even without testing? Would you use any of them if they did 
grade your understanding of everything you looked based on some criterion 
of their own and reported those grades about you to unknown people, 
perhaps into some kind of credit-score like facility related to future 
employment?

Testing is a step towards control; whether for good or bad in various 
situations is a more difficult question. And what becomes of the results 
in a digital world with a long memory is even more problematical.

As long as kids are not *compelled* to be in a class, one way of knowing a 
teacher is losing his or her audience is to look at the number of empty 
seats. :-) But a packed classroom is obviously not the only indicator of 
quality (they might show up for ice cream sundaes too. :-) And also, a kid 
deciding a subject is not of interest for him or her at the moment may 
itself be a sign of learning.

--Paul Fernhout

Laura Creighton wrote:
> If you do it properly, a purpose (and I believe the most important one)
> of testing-the-students is to let the teacher know how well he or she is
> doing her job.  If they aren't learning what you are trying to teach, you
> need to do something differently.