While the rest of us were riding our tricycles into brick walls, as a two year old, he liked to patiently walk beside his "trike", watching the pedals move in their repetitive circular course, attempting to figure out the connection between the wheels and the funny appendages.
His brilliant mind took him to the world of chemical engineering, where he not only creates software for refineries, but, in addition, he trains young engineers.
They have graduated within the last ten years, I would assume. Sadly, this means they were unable to escape the beginning tentacles of standardized testing mania: A, B, C or D ( and if you do not know...guess).
After hearing of the film's premiere, Aaron sent this email:
Brenda,
I'm proud that you finished your documentary and got to show it.
I'm proud that you finished your documentary and got to show it.
I'm of the camp of self discovery and discussion as the best way to teach engineers. Instructions, experimentation, letting them fail fail fail is the way to go. Some engineers require way more energy than others: I've seen some of the most dumb learn the most complex tasks, but I've never seen them solve a complex problem.
I felt compelled to reply:
Hola!
Thank you!
There are more plans for the "dissemination" of the film.
I am sorry to tell you, but chances are, as the years go by, and standardized bubble-in tests
take the place of actual "thinking tests" of the past, where students had to think of their own solutions and SHOW THEIR WORK, you are going to get engineers who are less and less capable of solving complex problems.
We are teaching children to choose from a set of "possible solutions", and that is NOT the way the real world works, unless you work in a cubicle with a script.
Even MIT is dismayed over the students they are being sent.
Their incoming freshman are less and less creative.
They just want to know what they have to learn to "pass the test".
Sincerely,
la Brenda
In the course of interviewing students for the film, I spoke with a German exchange student, Michael. There are three levels of high school in his country. Michael is at the highest level. When we discussed bubble-in tests, he was not shy to express his disgust for them. In Germany, students DO NOT fill in bubbles on tests. They must think deeply and respond with detail. Questions are opened ended. Students must KNOW the material, or they will fail.
Is it any wonder Germany's students continue to excel on the world stage, while our students are plummeting?
Their students are still being taught to think for themselves, while our students are taught to look at someone else's answers to math problems or comprehension of reading passages and to decide which answer seems best.
As a fifth grade teacher, I instruct my students in a variety of comprehension skills and strategies. We discuss drawing conclusions, making judgments, and inferences. Week after week, we look in story selections for "clues" to connect with their own experiences in order to more deeply understand what they are reading.
It never fails to AMAZE me how many inferences a class of ten year olds can make about the exact same passage!
Since the children are individuals and come from a multitude of backgrounds, even given the same textual clues, their inferences run the gamut because the details and experiences of their young lives are absolutely different.
And then, on a multiple choice comprehension test, when they are to infer, and they are presented with four answers ( two of which can seem plausible), they must step into the mind of a stranger, instead of seeking their own original thoughts on the subject, in order to "get it right".
On multiple choice tests, the higher levels of Bloom's Critical Thinking ( application & analysis), where unique problem solving, examining, and breaking information into parts in order to make new conclusions, are immediately supplanted with more basic levels of thinking ( knowledge & comprehension), where students need only recall and interpret.
Since computers are the new "graders" of many student tests ( especially in "program improvement" districts where computer-graded tests are required to establish teacher "accountability"), the public might think teachers are relieved.
All we have to do is collect the completed test answer sheets, open up the computer program, place the tests face-up on the scanner, and press a button. In a few minutes we have all of the tests graded. If we so choose, we can see our student data presented in a variety of ways.
Great, right?
No.
What standardized test makers and proponents do not seem to comprehend is that when they substituted teachers with computers as "graders", they took away one of the best teaching tools available to an educator: analysis of assessments with open ended questions, which brings clarity when trying to understand where a student is struggling.
I do not care how many charts and graphs and percentages a computer program can crank out. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for a teacher connecting with a student via an essay or a show-your-work test.
Computer graded tests are hardly a "convenience" or a "time saver", when a teacher must find other methods of more deeply assessing their students.
Since computers are the new "graders" of many student tests ( especially in "program improvement" districts where computer-graded tests are required to establish teacher "accountability"), the public might think teachers are relieved.
All we have to do is collect the completed test answer sheets, open up the computer program, place the tests face-up on the scanner, and press a button. In a few minutes we have all of the tests graded. If we so choose, we can see our student data presented in a variety of ways.
Great, right?
No.
What standardized test makers and proponents do not seem to comprehend is that when they substituted teachers with computers as "graders", they took away one of the best teaching tools available to an educator: analysis of assessments with open ended questions, which brings clarity when trying to understand where a student is struggling.
I do not care how many charts and graphs and percentages a computer program can crank out. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for a teacher connecting with a student via an essay or a show-your-work test.
Computer graded tests are hardly a "convenience" or a "time saver", when a teacher must find other methods of more deeply assessing their students.
Sadly, my brother is dealing with a new generation of engineers. Instead of being taught through the course of their public education to distinguish relationships, discover, experiment and solve, they are taught a host of "test taking strategies" and to think in the realm of only the most basic concepts and answers and to rephrase instead of REINVENT.
