11–20 of 464 posts
This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math. > Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise. It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of li…
This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math. > Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise. It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of li…
1: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad...
This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math. > Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise. It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of li…
This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math. > Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise. It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of li…
I have mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand I’m completely here for the argument that standardized tests aren’t a good way to evaluate poetry (or other sorts of literature). But in the current environment that frequently reduces to an argument that because it’s not obviously quantifiable we shouldn’t do it. That I disagree with. Most problems don’t have objectively quantifiable metrics naturally so bein…
Indeed, but a multiple-choice standardized test question is the antithesis of such an environment.
This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math. > Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise. It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of li…
A multiple-choice, norm-referenced test doesn't measure justifiable answers.
This feels like the literary version of the "what in tarnation would you ever need this new-fangled multiplication for" critiques of common core math. > Holbrook wrote that asking students to guess an author's intent in writing a piece of literature is doomed to be a pointless exercise. It's pedagogy! Students aren't trying to divine the One True Meaning of the piece. They're trying to learn how to read a piece of li…
But they're not being asked to produce a justifiable answer. This is multiple choice with only 1 'correct' answer. The only way to really test comprehension is through essay questions but then the complaints on subjectivity are raised and we're back at standardised multiple choice
There's a complete paper for GCSE (at 16) English here. Choose the June 2017 one, as the November one has the source material omitted due to copyright.
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/english/gcse/english-languag...
You can skip to the last few pages of the mark scheme to get the idea of how the long-form answers are marked. "Varied and inventive use of structural features, Writing is compelling, incorporating a range of convincing and complex ideas, Fluently linked paragraphs with seamlessly integrated discourse markers"