What I Learned Today #5 - Tests are like fine art?

While in a workshop today, a conversation started on how reading comprehension is not just how the reader reacts to the text, but what the author's intentions are as well. As I thought over this, it occurred to me that this helps to explain why students have difficulty with testing in ELA; I realize that when a student is responding to a test, they are engaging in a discussion with not only the authors of the pieces that are used, but also the creators of the test questions.

Every test is written by someone or a group of "someones". Those people, as they create the test questions based on the authors' works, are actually initiating a conversation about these works with the test-taker. The creator of the test has (on well-made tests) brought out essential qualities and understandings inherent to the authors' words and is asking the test-taker to join in that discussion by selecting reasonable responses in multiple choice form (though I still think that written response works best - tougher to grade, I guess).

This conversation between test-taker and test-maker should not be overlooked as we work with students. Success on tests (and in class) is not found by simply having a personal reaction to a text, but it’s also not just a matter of “saying what they want you to say”. It’s somewhere in the middle, nested in that space where a teacher is looking for a student to open her or his mind to new ideas and perspectives, but to also bring an element of self to the conversation.

This draws me back to something that I've thought about quite a bit: that reading is more similar to viewing art than we acknowledge. For instance, I can debate with someone the merits of a certain painting and I can describe my feelings about that work, but I also have to take into account that there was a painter, and that painter had an intention. The painter's intention led to the creation, and that is where true understanding lies. I take my own visceral reactions to the work, then combine those feelings with a sincere attempt to understand what the artist is trying to convey.

So, how do we read this way? When I approach a text, I am bound to have a personal reaction to it in some way. However, I am also searching the author's work for clues to her or his intentions - the infamous "author's purpose" test question. Like a painting, I balance my reaction with my analysis to create understanding. If students were taught to do this with text, test-taking would become easier. When coming to a new passage, the student would read it and try to find a personal connection to it, but would then allow the test-maker to engage them in a discussion of elements that might not have been apparent on first glance.

I'm not saying that taking a standardized test is the same as viewing a Picasso, but it pays to note that in both cases there will be reaction that must be balanced against the creator's intentions. And when a student approaches a test this way, he or she is much more likely to be able to engage in the conversation that the test-maker has begun.

The Meaning of "Uniform" in School

As the first online homework assignment for my class this year, I had the students read an article about uniforms for public schools. The school uniform debate is always a good conversation starter, and the kids enjoyed responding to the pros and cons of the issue. As you might expect, there was a flurry of "personal expression" arguments. The kids were smart about how they presented their views, though. They understood why one might say that uniforms could improve self-esteem, decrease negative peer interaction, and remove gang and clique cultures from the school. They understood those arguments; they just didn't believe them. They countered (and most research shows) that those anticipated effects really don't take place, and that bullying and grouping and low self-esteem happens with or without uniforms.

And so we wrapped up the debate (leaving a few loose ends), and I moved on through the week. A few days later, though, I realized that I was participating in a different "uniform" debate, and it had nothing to do with what my students were wearing. I found myself in multiple conversations about the school's literacy program and ELA curriculum. I began to notice that the arguments being made in favor of certain methods (and the curriculum at large) were very similar to those used in the dress code debate. I found myself at odds with the notion that there is a way to teach language arts in a uniform manner, conforming to the terminology and processes of a certain method and ensuring that all students have a common experience in class.

I keep trying my best to see the need for this uniformity in curriculum. I know that no district wants to explain why certain teachers won't follow along with a given program. It looks like disrespect and dissent, and it reflects poorly on the district at large. At the same time, I continue to see language arts as an area in flux; the digital age has started a transition that is effecting what language is and how it is used. I believe that there are positive aspects to most programs and methods, but I also believe that a teacher needs to be free to find the best avenues of work with his own students and their specific needs. Beyond that, each teacher develops his or her own teaching style, and not all programs mesh perfectly with all styles.

An acting professor of mine was once discussing the art of acting and creating a character. I asked him which method was "best": the popular Method created by Stanislavsky, or the variation on that theme by Sanford Meisner, or perhaps something else entirely. And his answer still resonates: he told me to immerse myself in all of the various processes, and then to take what was best from each of them to create something personal that worked for me. I now find myself in a similar scenario with the curricula and practices being used in education. Rather than ascribing completely to one method of doing things, I prefer to learn about all the various programs and take from them what's best for me and my students. In effect, it's the "personal expression" argument from a different perspective.

My hope is that this will not look as though I refuse to "buy in" to a given system that the school is supposed to be doing; I don't intend to dismiss any educator's work as wrong or irrelevant. However, I also know that when it comes to actual teaching in the classroom, I will always choose the freedom to experiment, develop, and explore different ways of doing things that will best help my students succeed.