Today I subbed for British Literature, which is my territory and consequently I guess I'm a little more observant of how English is taught. English Literature, Rhetoric, and Composition is exceptionally important, not only in the development of basic skills of reading and communication, but also in developing creative critical thinking skills. This means giving a person the skills to form arguments, to develop research strategies, and ultimately be able to critically think in unique situations because of the lack of order of operation in literary analysis. Bottom line: you will not always face a troubleshooting issue that can be fixed by operations. You need a creative element to one's troubleshooting capabilities. This is the ultimate objective in English pedagogy, in my opinion, and it is one of my guiding principles as a future English educator (hopefully).
While substituting I noticed a test on Medieval and Renaissance literature; perusing the questions I found this test to be totally worthless to the aforementioned objective and, really, to the students' future. In perspective, I am reminded of a time when I mentioned the contributions of a chemist in Chemistry 1212 and a guy behind me said "You don't need to know that," because knowing who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry isn't going to help one develop the skills that come with Chemistry. He's right, and I was totally buffoonish. Likewise, this test was basically like me in that chemistry situation, and I regarded it in the same way as my classmate. The questions were basic, trivia questions. "What happened to Lady MacBeth before she died?" "The defeat _____ changed English history." "Elizabeth murdered whom in 1587?" Do the students need to know this?
To an extent it is imperative to understand context, and in the case of the MacBeth, to understand what happened in what was read. This isn't helping students though. While students need to boost their memory, memory is aided through practical uses. Just remembering a math equation will not help you; your memory of that math equation increases through practice and through application. Likewise, that test should do more to test the students' capability to apply the information to analytical short answer questions. "Explain, briefly, how Shakespeare uses MacBeth to critique Elizabethan politics." "In what way was blood used as a leitmotif?" These kind of questions both enable the student to apply classwork and information but also create critical arguments, and presents circumstances in which analytical tools are pressed into action.
We need to veer away from multiple choice tests. They are asinine, and exist due to student numbers primarily. They do very little in improving the student's applicable capabilities in the real world. At Gainesville State I actually felt I received some wonderful examples of how this can work. My Chemistry professor offered a short answer test, and would grade based on correct answer, but give credit for correct work done on equations in solving incorrect problems. Why? To help facilitate growth. Another wonderful example was Larry Cook, my Stagecraft and History of Costume Design and Decor professor. He only gave out two tests, all of the test was short answer and he'd take off if you didn't put enough on the test; typically he'd expect at least 3 pieces of information per question. A lot of people wouldn't do well, but he always held a policy of allowing the tests to be corrected but with a caveat: if you brought in a test with a question that required a sentence, he'd expect a paragraph. A more applicable example in the English pedagogy context was Chris Barnes, my English 1102 professor. He was pretty laid back, and usually split the class in groups and have them work together. One of the great ideas was that he expected the essay to be worked on, but he'd accept better drafts. Why? Because he, like most people, understand that education is about growth. Not everyone is going to understand an essay at first go, but through analysis of mistakes made on said first go the second draft or even the third draft could show excellence.
Now to get to my (other) bottom line: As an aspiring English educator I tend to be aware of how my teachers and how other teachers teach so that I can build my curriculum accordingly. Any teacher you meet is the sum of the best parts of their favorite teachers. What I believe pedagogy should be based around is enhancing critical thinking and practical skills, as well as spurring growth. That's why I look at the Medieval and Renaissance test, as well as any multiple choice test and standardized test with a decidedly negative view. It does not help students grow, nor does it test critical thinking skills. We cannot do this to our students. We must work towards a more engaging, and a more practical curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment