I t is a truth universally acknowledged that to memorise information, just reading it a few times in a textbook is not very effective. In a study by Henry Roediger and Jeffrey Karpicke at the Washington University in St Louis, students who took a short test immediately after reading a piece of prose greatly increased their chances of recalling the information again in a test some time later. Indeed, the researchers claimed that if students know that they will be tested regularly throughout a whole term (even each period), they would study more and remember a larger amount of information. No one can deny that tests can clearly be helpful in structuring our learning – but only, I would argue, if they are used in a wise way. Crucial to young people being successful and motivated learners is an understanding of the reasons why they are in fact taught any bit of information. ‘Because it is written in the syllabus’ or ‘because it might be in the test’ may both be plausible explanations – pretty much everyone wants to achieve good results in public examinations and learning what is in the syllabus seems like an obvious way to achieve that goal. However, at least two responses can be made to argue against this view. The superficial response goes like this: ‘real’ learning begins when students start to go beyond the syllabus and also when they encounter a subject in many different ways – not
just through testing. It costs time and hard work to go beyond the outlines but it pays back in the future – we become more independent- minded, gain more intellectual confidence and find pleasure in different intellectual undertakings. This might be too idealistic for some – those who just want to succeed in the jobs market or who are simply less ambitious about what schools and universities should offer. But there is a second reason. The motivation to learn a given thing because it will be required in an exam produces is also unrealistic. After all, ‘in life, there is no grading on the curve or otherwise’, as Kathy Davidson from Duke University points out in her book Now You See It . It is not very controversial to say that success in life is defined in much more complex terms than letter grades; however, in the first 18 years of life the highest priority is assigned to obtaining high grades in exams. There seems, therefore, a tension between the definition of success in life and success in school, exemplified by a widely held view (or a kind of open secret) that there is not an ultimate correlation between these two types of success. The more emphasis we place on learning for testing, the more we are likely to forget about that common sense belief. Learning just to get a good grade on a test cannot give, by itself, a complete view on a subject; neither
can it be a prescription for achieving the success in life. But still lessons at schools all over the world are designed to prepare us to take tests successfully. The best learning surely occurs when we are challenged to step outside our safety zones, something difficult to achieve even with challenging past papers. There is one further reason to treat tests with caution. As Mike Feerick, CEO of the online education platform ALISON notes, ‘there’s an idea that kids always need synchronous courses to be engaged – this is completely flying against the cultural norms of this generation, where resources are self-paced, on-demand’. The rise of internet has brought about a shift in the way young people gain knowledge – personalised newsfeeds and self- paced online courses (MOOCs) are two well-known examples. Linear syllabi, the same for everyone, are now looking distinctly outmoded. It is also worth mentioning that the processing of knowledge online is a collective undertaking, based on the equality of members (co-learners) participating in it. In schools, we still see too often the well-established hierarchy in the relationship between teachers and students, where the role of the former is to provide the material; the job of the latter to absorb it efficiently. As Sir Michael Barber, education expert and former head of the Downing Street Delivery Unit, puts it, ‘the teacher is no longer just a transmitter of knowledge, but neither is she or he a mere facilitator. The role is that of an “activator”… someone who injects ambition, provokes thought, asks great questions, challenges mediocrity, and brings passion and insight to the task at hand.’ A worthy aim for education – but not so easy to achieve if your students are quietly doing a test…
THE BEST LEARNING SURELY OCCURS WHEN WE ARE CHALLENGED TO STEP OUTSIDE OUR SAFETY ZONES, SOMETHING DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE EVEN WITH CHALLENGING PAST PAPERS
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker