Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Admittedly, I expect in Frazz's school days the only exams they had was hunting the mammoths...

Just Dave wrote:Admittedly, I expect in Frazz's school days the only exams they had was hunting the mammoths...

Technically they were mastadons oh wait er look over there!

For someone who loves semantic arguments, Shuma, you are not having a good thread.

Then get ready for a doozy, you're about to fall into semanticsland.

Look closely at the hierarchy I posted there. It starts with very low-level tasks of recall and "knowing". Recalling a list of dates, or the names of capital cities (Recall/Knowledge) is not as useful as the skills of using of libraries and the internet to look dates and places up. This is still not as useful as being able to explain why a particular city is situated where it is (understanding). This is STILL not as useful as being able to use what you know about why Paris, London and Berlin are situated where they are to explain why Madrid is where it is (application and synthesis). But of course, you start your sequence of lessons by making sure that your young pupils can identify some cities, and pick out capitals from that list. Next, with the same class or when they are a bit older, you might check they understand what a capital city is, not just simplistic definitions, but what it really means to be a capital city, or to live and work in one. Once you have done that, you'll start to look in depth at what capital cities have in common, and then maybe use that to decide what makes a "good" capital city. I am not a geography teacher, and have never taught the subject, but I know enough to know that is how it works. At the end of a subject you want pupils with skills to analyse populations, movement of those populations, make economic and environmental predictions. These are skills, and they require you to use knowledge, but knowledge alone is not enough.

Similarly, nor is knowing a bunch of boiling points as useful as having the skills need to design an experiment to find a substances boiling point, nor the use of chemical tables and the like to estimate boiling points.

I said knowledge, not facts.

BAM

knowl·edge   [nol-ij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6.
something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8.
the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9.
Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

Knowledge is more of a generally applicable term concerning the absorption and application of useful skills, facts, and ideas. Knowledge isn't "teaching to the test" it's knowledge. Teaching knowledge isn't teaching specific facts, it's imparting what you wish students to know in whatever method is best. It's a catcheall, and I was speaking to the purpose of the test in combination with the purpose of schooling. By your own admittance the purpose of schooling is to give students the knowledge the state deems needed by the time they leave. While you've arguing methodology I've simply been arguing the reality of the situation. Tests can not test the wont to learn, those kind of tests take months and are very personal. They can only truly test what knowledge has already been gleaned and a students ability to transmit that knowledge via the structure of the test.

ShumaGorath wrote:

For someone who loves semantic arguments, Shuma, you are not having a good thread.

Then get ready for a doozy, you're about to fall into semanticsland.

Look closely at the hierarchy I posted there. It starts with very low-level tasks of recall and "knowing". Recalling a list of dates, or the names of capital cities (Recall/Knowledge) is not as useful as the skills of using of libraries and the internet to look dates and places up. This is still not as useful as being able to explain why a particular city is situated where it is (understanding). This is STILL not as useful as being able to use what you know about why Paris, London and Berlin are situated where they are to explain why Madrid is where it is (application and synthesis). But of course, you start your sequence of lessons by making sure that your young pupils can identify some cities, and pick out capitals from that list. Next, with the same class or when they are a bit older, you might check they understand what a capital city is, not just simplistic definitions, but what it really means to be a capital city, or to live and work in one. Once you have done that, you'll start to look in depth at what capital cities have in common, and then maybe use that to decide what makes a "good" capital city. I am not a geography teacher, and have never taught the subject, but I know enough to know that is how it works. At the end of a subject you want pupils with skills to analyse populations, movement of those populations, make economic and environmental predictions. These are skills, and they require you to use knowledge, but knowledge alone is not enough.

Similarly, nor is knowing a bunch of boiling points as useful as having the skills need to design an experiment to find a substances boiling point, nor the use of chemical tables and the like to estimate boiling points.

I said knowledge, not facts.

BAM

Shuma clearly has no fear of the Head of Learning. Maybe he knows the secret of the riddle of steel...

Even when I use knowledge in a layman's sense, rather than as a more tightly defined educational term, you are still wrong.

acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

But nothing about understanding those facts, truths or principles, or more importantly doing something with them.

familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job

Again, familiarity with, not understanding of. For example, my father has proven himself very capable of actually producing a set of acocunts to satisfy the taxman, but he can't explain to you why it is laid out that way, how the taxman uses that info, etc, etc... He has knowledge of basic accounting for his own needs, but not an understanding of them. He has the most basic skills needed to produce the accounts, but not the deeper skills needed to use them.

acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

Again, a very passive knowing - no sense that you necessarily use that knowledge of human nature to do anything useful.

the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

An insinuation in the last part here of actual understanding, but we are down to what, the fourth definition here? Certainly no implication of the development of skills or of using that knowledge in a useful way.

awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

Again, no useful application of that knowledge.

something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

And again... (Although, to support my point, he is hopefully using some sort of skillset to gather knowledge of her activities, perhaps rumour-gathering, running informants, setting up surveillance equipment, tailing her... All skills, not knowledge.)

the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

Accumulated using skills, such as first hand research by archaology, data-trawling, or second-hand skills such as analysing other historians' texts.

the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

Again, no use of skills here. And how would you increase your knowledge of the true situation? Use skills to find out more.

Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.

Pretty sure that is not what either of us are talking about.

Knowledge is more of a generally applicable term concerning the absorption and application of useful skills, facts, and ideas. Knowledge isn't "teaching to the test" it's knowledge. Teaching knowledge isn't teaching specific facts, it's imparting what you wish students to know in whatever method is best.

Nowhere in the list above are skills referred to. Even an "idea" is a far more creative and far more nebulous concept regarded as being part of higher level thinking. Whether you like it or not, the educational establishment, at both a theoretical level and a practical level, uses the word in a very specific way. One of the most famous is Bloom's Taxonomy, and if I felt the urge I could go on to many other similar schools of thought. This is a practical element of teaching, as when we write our lesson plans and decide on objectives for a lesson, we will normally try to ensure that we have tarets suitable for our pupils, such as several "identify X,Y or Z, or list X number of..." type objectives for a class of weaker pupils, whereas a higher level class will use "compare X and Y, and thereby justify a selection of which is apropriate for each of the following situations." Identifying demonstrates knowledge, Comparison demonstrates critical thinking. It is NOT just theory, it is a deeply ingrained part of the profession.

And I feel I am repeating myself when I say that it is not about giving students knowledge that I already have - it is about giving them the mental tools to go and either find out or figure out for themselves things I haven't taught them, and that I may not even know. The Case Study piece of coursework for OCR requires students to go out and do a piece of coursework on a topic of their choice, with my guidance. Every time I learnt something new from one of my students' pieces of work, I knew I was doing my job properly. For those who simply regurgitated stuff I had taught them in a slightly different format, I knew I had to get more out of them. Even the mark scheme required original research to get top marks. I am not looking for whether my students come up with a particular set of facts or knowledge, I am looking for their ability to locate, adapt and use that knowledge, because if they can use that skill once, they can do it again.

I would rather teach pupils the skill of how to find good places to fish rather than simply give them knowledge of good places to fish. That way, when the places change, they can still find more fish, rather than having to ask someone else for an update.

It's a catcheall, and I was speaking to the purpose of the test in combination with the purpose of schooling. By your own admittance the purpose of schooling is to give students the knowledge the state deems needed by the time they leave. While you've arguing methodology I've simply been arguing the reality of the situation. Tests can not test the wont to learn, those kind of tests take months and are very personal. They can only truly test what knowledge has already been gleaned and a students ability to transmit that knowledge via the structure of the test.

That sort of short-sighted view of what school is about is why so many teachers do still teach to the test. At no point have I "admitted" that the purpose of schooling is to give the students the knowledge to pass that test. Sadly, that is what often happens in many teachers' classrooms, but it is not what is intended, and it is not what happens in my classroom. I don't know how you can claim to be arguing the reality of the situation when I am the one doing it, "at the chalkface", and generally getting results that prove my way is right.

In many tests these days, Geography, History and Science being subjects where it is particularly common, pupils spend their year working on a few time periods, or countries, or scientific developments... Then, in one of the tests (not all, I will admit), they are presented with an entirely new set of data, one they have never studied, and which even the teachers cannot predict in advance, and they are expected to analyse this data, answer questions and generally use the skills they have learnt previously to do the test. They can't just learn the higher-level answers from their teachers, they have to know how to work out those higher level answers from the data available using skills they have acquired during the year. It is not perfect, and it does not happen as much as it should, but the purpose of education is to acquire those skills, so they can repeatedly use them, perfect them, and acquire better skills.

Most of the children I am educating will eventually work in jobs that have not even been invented yet, so the best I can do for them is train them to be able to train themselves. Yes, they will acquire knowledge along the way, but that is not the pupose of what I do.

I find your perpetual assumption that you know more about everything than anyone else on these forums, even experts in their own field, insulting. Your inability to realise thatabout yourself makes me sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-3/science/Level-descriptions/index.aspx

The above link takes you to the KS3 national curriculum. That is for 11-14 year olds. You will notice that Level 2 refers to knowing stuff, and even level 3 and 4 talk about using their knowledge. The VAST majority of pupils would be expected to be level 4 or 5 by the time they are twelve, many are level 5, 6 or even 7 by that age. By level 7 they are applying abstract knowledge. Not just acquiring, but using abstract knowledge. They don't just know about Sound Waves, they use that knowledge to describe, explain and connect. That is not knowledge, that is thinking.

Nowhere in the list above are skills referred to. Even an "idea" is a far more creative and far more nebulous concept regarded as being part of higher level thinking.

Skills are every bit as nebulous as ideas, and the above most certainly did speak of them. Knowledge of history is considered a skill, as is the ability to think and work within a logical framework. Skills are at their barest "knowledge made practical".

Nowhere in the list above are skills referred to. Even an "idea" is a far more creative and far more nebulous concept regarded as being part of higher level thinking. Whether you like it or not, the educational establishment, at both a theoretical level and a practical level, uses the word in a very specific way. One of the most famous is Bloom's Taxonomy, and if I felt the urge I could go on to many other similar schools of thought. This is a practical element of teaching, as when we write our lesson plans and decide on objectives for a lesson, we will normally try to ensure that we have tarets suitable for our pupils, such as several "identify X,Y or Z, or list X number of..." type objectives for a class of weaker pupils, whereas a higher level class will use "compare X and Y, and thereby justify a selection of which is apropriate for each of the following situations." Identifying demonstrates knowledge, Comparison demonstrates critical thinking. It is NOT just theory, it is a deeply ingrained part of the profession.

Practicum and theory are not mutually exclusive, and I haven't been arguing with your methods though I'm happy that you have elaborated on them because it creates a much better framework for understanding your posts. I stated that you should speak in practicum because speaking in theory doesn't give a concrete example of your opinions in action, having both is the best medicine.

And I feel I am repeating myself when I say that it is not about giving students knowledge that I already have - it is about giving them the mental tools to go and either find out or figure out for themselves things I haven't taught them, and that I may not even know. The Case Study piece of coursework for OCR requires students to go out and do a piece of coursework on a topic of their choice, with my guidance. Every time I learnt something new from one of my students' pieces of work, I knew I was doing my job properly. For those who simply regurgitated stuff I had taught them in a slightly different format, I knew I had to get more out of them. Even the mark scheme required original research to get top marks. I am not looking for whether my students come up with a particular set of facts or knowledge, I am looking for their ability to locate, adapt and use that knowledge, because if they can use that skill once, they can do it again.

That is your preference, and it's the basest level of the conversation. You are still teaching them specifics. If you sit down to teach them physics and your student learns art history, I don't think you're going to be particularly happy with their "self actualized progress". You are discussing a method for teaching and then stating that you are outside of the system of dissemination of information. That is not your role. No matter your position on how to best get children to learn they are still at school for the specific purpose of learning specific things preordained by the state in which they are a resident. That is the entire point of the public education system, to give a broad and standardized education to everyone from which they can base the rest of their life.

That sort of short-sighted view of what school is about is why so many teachers do still teach to the test. At no point have I "admitted" that the purpose of schooling is to give the students the knowledge to pass that test.

Please explain to me how I have been advocating teaching to the test? I described how the standardized grading system gives a societal view on the progress of students in their capacity to learn specific facts as required by the state. I didn't advocate teaching to the test, and I didn't state that the role of the school was to teach to the test. I described the test, I described the tests role. You are the one attempting to frame an opinion that I have never held.

In many tests these days, Geography, History and Science being subjects where it is particularly common, pupils spend their year working on a few time periods, or countries, or scientific developments... Then, in one of the tests (not all, I will admit), they are presented with an entirely new set of data, one they have never studied, and which even the teachers cannot predict in advance, and they are expected to analyse this data, answer questions and generally use the skills they have learnt previously to do the test. They can't just learn the higher-level answers from their teachers, they have to know how to work out those higher level answers from the data available using skills they have acquired during the year. It is not perfect, and it does not happen as much as it should, but the purpose of education is to acquire those skills, so they can repeatedly use them, perfect them, and acquire better skills.

See:

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

I don't advocate teaching to the test, I was simply describing the function of education and the function of tests. Being knowledgeable in fields "commonly considered important" is the purpose of education. Giving children the skills required to learn and acquire skills is the methodology behind doing such. If you have taught a child to learn very well, but that child leaves the school without knowing where he lives on a map or how to multiply then you've done a very poor job as a teacher. The students ability to learn at a much better rate should have seen him learn the required fields while he was still within the institution that required it of him and provides him the means. Those students are considered failures within schools. As I said, you can't truly test intelligence, and intelligence is not always a useful measurement. You can test required knowledge though, and thats what schools do.

Most of the children I am educating will eventually work in jobs that have not even been invented yet, so the best I can do for them is train them to be able to train themselves. Yes, they will acquire knowledge along the way, but that is not the pupose of what I do.

What do you teach? I'm pretty sure knowledge of language, physics, mathematics, and geography have been fairly static from generation to generation. It's not like you're teaching this years version of photoshop (are you?).

I find your perpetual assumption that you know more about everything than anyone else on these forums, even experts in their own field, insulting. Your inability to realise thatabout yourself makes me sad.

There are startlingly few experts in any field on this forum and you've been framing my arguments to suit your own from the very beginning. It's tiresome. Do you have an axe to grind? Did I spring your trap card?

The above link takes you to the KS3 national curriculum. That is for 11-14 year olds. You will notice that Level 2 refers to knowing stuff, and even level 3 and 4 talk about using their knowledge. The VAST majority of pupils would be expected to be level 4 or 5 by the time they are twelve, many are level 5, 6 or even 7 by that age. By level 7 they are applying abstract knowledge. Not just acquiring, but using abstract knowledge. They don't just know about Sound Waves, they use that knowledge to describe, explain and connect. That is not knowledge, that is thinking.

The knowledge of how to apply knowledge is still knowledge.

familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job

For instance a knowledge of accounting is the knowledge of how to apply mathematics for the foundation of accounting. This is sort of a return to how I stated that skills and knowledge are the same thing. They are.

I'm just happy that they've introduced the A+ grade, things become too fuzzy up the top-end... There are people who achieve As who have absolutely no passion or finesse for the subject, in my experience at least...

Henners91 wrote:I'm just happy that they've introduced the A+ grade, things become too fuzzy up the top-end... There are people who achieve As who have absolutely no passion or finesse for the subject, in my experience at least...

They've been removing it from the state I live in for years. There are no A+ grades in maine anymore.

Shuma, I really do believe you could start an argument in an empty room....

Just a shame that grades have very little to do with how well someone actually did on the tests, due to the whole raw/adjusted/etc system they have of grading.

Someone who gets 30% on a maths paper should not be getting a C grade, for example.

Hell, when I did maths at A-level I got 100% adjusted in one of my papers, and I can say with near certainty that I did not get 100% of the actual marks on that paper.

ShumaGorath wrote:Skills are every bit as nebulous as ideas, and the above most certainly did speak of them. Knowledge of history is considered a skill, as is the ability to think and work within a logical framework. Skills are at their barest "knowledge made practical".

The first, italicised, no, not by the educational establishment, it isn't. The second, bolded, that is consdered a skill, not knowledge.

I'll tell you what, you use your own terminology, which completely clashes with that used by people who actually work in education, and I'll stick to the regular definitions used by classroom teachers, senior managers, consultants, authors, teacher trainers, and even pupils themselves throughout the UK, Europe and Australia. Probably even the USA, though that is a law unto itself. And when I post in threads about education, I'll use the commonly accepted terminology.

You might not like that the education establishment uses the words in the way I have described, but it does. There is no point arguing about it, as you won't make them (or me) change their minds. Your track record from what I have seen of you before suggests you are not going to listen to me either, so now that everyone else has had the opportunity to make up their own minds about whether schools are about knowledge or skills, I'll stop.

SilverMK2 wrote:Just a shame that grades have very little to do with how well someone actually did on the tests, due to the whole raw/adjusted/etc system they have of grading.

Someone who gets 30% on a maths paper should not be getting a C grade, for example.

Hell, when I did maths at A-level I got 100% adjusted in one of my papers, and I can say with near certainty that I did not get 100% of the actual marks on that paper.

I think exams can be a fair test on how well people have done over-all, but - for me in particular - they're not always a fair test of knowledge. For example, I was really confident after my history exam and was a recognised as a history boff - I even tought my class before the exam!! - but I still only got a C! I recognise I don't do well in exams, so I don't think they're fair for all people. Admittedly however, they seem the most accurate none-the-less.

Henners91 wrote:I'm just happy that they've introduced the A+ grade, things become too fuzzy up the top-end... There are people who achieve As who have absolutely no passion or finesse for the subject, in my experience at least...

Technically it's A* but meh. Personally, I'm not too keen on it, I think it 'cheapens' the other grades, particularly an A. However, some people truly did earn them!

SilverMK2 wrote:Just a shame that grades have very little to do with how well someone actually did on the tests, due to the whole raw/adjusted/etc system they have of grading.

Someone who gets 30% on a maths paper should not be getting a C grade, for example.

Hell, when I did maths at A-level I got 100% adjusted in one of my papers, and I can say with near certainty that I did not get 100% of the actual marks on that paper.

The marks are not adjusted, the grade boundaries are. This has been the case for at least 5 or 6 years now, but I don't know when you did your A-Levels, so things may have changed. There have also been rare papers where it is possible to "overscore", thereby getting full marks, even if you have a small amount wrong, but in any cases of this I have seen with A-Level Physics, that is clearly marked and only on specific questions. Maybe A-Level Maths is different, but I doubt it.

As for the 30% = C grade, that absolutely could not happen at A-Level. You are looking at approximately 60% to get a C-grade, every year.

At GCSE, if you took the higher paper, then you will need about 60% again to get a C-grade. On the foundation paper, which is what I mostly teach, you are looking at well over 80% to get a C-grade.

I used 30% as "a number from the air", don't worry

And I did my A-levels... about... 6-7 years ago.

My parents (both teachers, both head of respective subjects and one of department, one was previously exam officer) always complain about exams, grade boundaries, mark adjustment and course content.

Luckily they work in a private school so can pretty much pick whichever exams they want to put people up for

I'll tell you what, you use your own terminology, which completely clashes with that used by people who actually work in education, and I'll stick to the regular definitions used by classroom teachers, senior managers, consultants, authors, teacher trainers, and even pupils themselves throughout the UK, Europe and Australia. Probably even the USA, though that is a law unto itself. And when I post in threads about education, I'll use the commonly accepted terminology.

I'm not in the education field. I've been using the dictionary definition as well as the one that is commonly understood by the majority of english speakers. You're arguing from a technical standpoint of a group that is very much in the minority. You do not own the language and it should be plain as day the writ that my words are coming from. I even posted the terminology I was using and stated that I haven't been arguing with your methods or definitions.

I'll tell you what, you use your own terminology, which completely clashes with that used by people who actually work in education, and I'll stick to the regular definitions used by classroom teachers, senior managers, consultants, authors, teacher trainers, and even pupils themselves throughout the UK, Europe and Australia.

It's nice that I get to be "outside" your system of definition (yet strangely somehow still within the dictionary) and yet you seem to hold sway over the terminology used by "managers, consultants, and authors". All fields you are not in.

You might not like that the education establishment uses the words in the way I have described, but it does.

And you may not like that the dictionary uses the words in the way that I have described, but it does.

There is no point arguing about it, as you won't make them (or me) change their minds.

I've told you now in 80% of my posts that I'm not trying too, nor was that ever my intention. This is entirely your argument.

Your track record from what I have seen of you before suggests you are not going to listen to me either, so now that everyone else has had the opportunity to make up their own minds about whether schools are about knowledge or skills, I'll stop.

My record should show that I have a tendency to get into arguments with intractable armchair genius' who like to attempt to frame my arguments to fit their own. I think that record remained intact today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:Shuma, I really do believe you could start an argument in an empty room....

Only if the room starts arguing from minority semantical frameworks or says something about disarming all of the middle east. Yeah, I probably would. It depends on the room.

Is there a side that is wrong here? Obviously, not about this second conversation going on.

I have a really hard time wrapping my head around tests getting easier and easier, year after year, after year after year... after year. It seems like a pretty cynical view but I am still not entirely sure that it is completely wrong. If we could get back to talking about that, it would be nice.

It seems very likely that the majority of students that are without any opportunities left, have simply been screwed by demand. One thing that confused me was the idea that retaking a test was inherently wrong, as I gathered from a few of the articles I read. Why is one of the most important tests in many young peoples lives held in such a way that limits what they can actually gain after years upon years of hard work.

Life isn't fair but I would have a really hard time not feeling bad for a lot of the folks that missed out.

Have the tests ACTUALLY gotten easier? I am still trying to find solid data on that, not sure why none of these top articles reference so little, a bit annoying really.

Just Dave wrote:Technically it's A* but meh. Personally, I'm not too keen on it, I think it 'cheapens' the other grades, particularly an A. However, some people truly did earn them!

It doesn't actually affect the A grade...

Example Grade boundaries before A*: B=70% A=80%
Example Grade boundaries after A*: B =70% A=80% A*=90%


it isn't a replacement grade, it's additional, and only applies to the very top.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Henners91 wrote:I'm just happy that they've introduced the A+ grade, things become too fuzzy up the top-end... There are people who achieve As who have absolutely no passion or finesse for the subject, in my experience at least...

They've been removing it from the state I live in for years. There are no A+ grades in maine anymore.

Everything's gone down hill since that boat was sunk hasn't it?

Blah blah blah.

Dr Ben Goldacre did a column on several academic studies into exam pass rates. It's an interesting read.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/exams-are-getting-easier/#more-1760

tl;dr version
There haven't been enough studies in the field to be certain, however the studies that have been done, may support the conclusion that the exams are getting easier.