It seems like ages since I last wrote but it only 11 days ago. I spent the last week immersed in preparation for the dreaded MSMC...drum roll, please--no, better would be the Twilight Zone theme...Comprehensive Exam and, now that I've completed it, I am NOT a happy camper. To start, the actual physical act of writing, by hand, for 6 hours was torture. I realized that I no longer write by hand for anything more than a note...I do everything on the computer. So writing by hand, when I am so unused to it, made me feel at a disadvantage from the get go. I realized, during the first question, that I think better when writing on the computer because I am able to edit so easily. While my answers were good enough to pass, I sincerely believe they would have been significantly better had I been using a computer. Which leads me to the question--why are we NOT using computers for this exam? Rather than focusing entirely on my answers, I was also worrying about how my hand was cramping, that my pencil tips were getting flat, that my writing was getting sloppy, and that I might run out of room in my answer booklet because I didn't use the back side of pages for fear that it would make the front side less legible. In addition, whenever I wanted to add or change anything, I had to go back, erase to make room and then rewrite the original plus the additional information. At a few points, I determined this was just too much trouble and didn't do it at all. I had to keep going. It was ridiculous and non productive. How different it would have been on a computer and how different my answers would have been. Taking the comps in this manner made me realize why differentiated learning exists. Just as this was not the ideal set up for my demonstration of mastery, the same can be said for our students who are forced to take one size fits all tests that do not lend themselves to specific learning styles. What was even worse was the implicit hypocrisy of this whole exercise. Here we are, expressing founts of information on what we've been taught is the best and fairest ways to assess students and we are doing it in a manner that is completely antithetical to what we are writing! And it gets even better-which means worse! A question on the comp exam stated:
A single test cannot be expected to cover all of a student's important learning outcomes in a subject area.
What does this imply about using tests for evaluating a school's a) curriculum, b) instructional (I believe a second word is supposed to follow instructional--perhaps delivery / methods /strategies? --but it was somehow omitted, so this is exactly how the question appeared on the actual test), c) teachers, and d) students?
Let me make sure I've got this straight...I am defending that a single test cannot cover all of a student's important learning outcomes while taking a single test that is determining all my important learning outcomes!!!
Are you with me on this??? I think we need to expand that question to include e) What does this imply about the MSMC comp exam? Is not using a single test exactly what MSMC is doing? Is it not true that a student who does not pass this single exam, with a maximum of two tries, will not be awarded a graduate degree--regardless of any other evidence of mastery?
How utterly ironic, hypocritical, and disturbing I find this--just as I find it inexcusable that a key word is missing on such an important exam question and that another question specifically asks you to state your name right after we've been told to use only numbers to identify ourselves, and that a third question had a typo that made it difficult to understand what was being asked in that section of the question.
Do I sound upset? I am! This is why schools are so slow to move forward. We pay such eloquent lip service to concepts, theories, methods, strategies, and accommodations to improve student learning but rarely take the time to implement them. That this is a graduate school of education, and that they would use this one exam above all else to determine a students fitness for teaching is insane--even more so when you take into consideration the typo's. It is unconscionable that such a test should contain ANY errors. And the insanity continues when you look at some of the actual questions being asked. Everything I need to know about teaching I learned in Methods. That is the simple truth. Yes, I was exposed to some helpful information in other courses, but nothing really that I couldn't pick up in the field and nothing that significantly impacted my teaching philosophy or style of delivery. It was not until Methods that I finally began to understand what is expected of me as a teacher and how to meet those expectations. I consider this course to be my graduate education. Yet, there were only a few Methods related questions on the test. The other questions, in my opinion, had no direct bearing on my teaching ability or application of knowledge to teaching. They were the kind of questions people feel proud of creating, because they sound high level, but what are they actually measuring? How do they prove, or disprove, teaching ability?
This was a lesson for me and a wake up call to be extremely careful in how I design assessments for my students. It also made me more aware of different learning and assessment styles. The comps were easier for me because they involved writing and that is an environment I am extremely comfortable in. If this is not your environment, then it will be much more difficult. If you are not used to writing by hand, then start practicing now because it is tedious and painful. Oh, and if you need room when you take a test--you know, to spread out your papers and supplies, to have ample room to focus--then you're out of luck. We took the comps in a regular MSMC classroom with the tiny little side table desks. It was real conducive to doing one's best work--NOT! Why could they not have had large tables set up in the auditorium where we would have had room and comfort? Oh, maybe it was because they had a children's carnival going on inside Hudson Hall at the exact same time as this all important exam and the carnival, for some unknown reason, took precedence over our little test. I know I am ranting but I am so disillusioned. I will get over it but not without taking a lesson from it--you know my mantra-turn every negative into a positive.
Therefore, as a result of my experience taking the comp exam, I promise:
- to design meaningful assessments for my students that are directly related to meaningful outcomes-"not nice to know but imperative to know",
- to create a test taking environment that is as conducive as possible to optimum performance,
- to never let a child feel like a failure based on one test,
- to proof read my tests for typo's, missing words, and less than crystal clear wording,
- to provide authentic assessments that incorporate differentiated learning.
See? Something good can come out of something bad. Remember, always make lemonade--or you will go insane!
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment