Over on Pomoyemu, Silvia ran this quotation by Carl Rogers:
I believe that the testing of the student’s achievements in order to see if he meets some criterion held by the teacher, is directly contrary to the implications of therapy for significant learning. –Carl Rogers
Of course, I couldn’t hold still for it, so I posted a reply there. I’m reproducing that reply here.
I gotta disagree with the sentiment of the venerable Mr. (teehee) Rogers, Silvia.
If educators (including parents) consider something important enough that we plan to teach it, then we ought to want to know whether we have been successful and our students have learned that something. About the only way to ascertain whether something has been learned is to test it. A test does not have to be a pencil-and-paper assessment, of course; the test can be a demonstration of competence.
Consider crossing the street. I see crossing the street as a pretty important competency for young children. I’d even contend that it should be actively and explicitly taught. And, I’d want to know if my students faithfully executed the steps in street-crossing, so I’d test their competence. Obviously, the most appropriate tests would be administered in real-world environments, not by paper quiz, with careful oversight and under various conditions (quiet country roads; city streets; high-speed highways; etc.).
The same thinking applies to decoding in reading, solving for missing multiplicands, reporting the argument of an author, proving a geometrical relationship, and so on.
Essentially, if something’s is worth teaching, it’s worth testing.
By the way, I think the reverse is true, too. If something is important enough to test, then we ought to teach it.
And naturally I had to respond to your comment.
I haven’t read much on this blog yet, but have you read Thomas Armstrong’s books? He had something interesting to say about children with learning disabilities, related to their possibly being children with a high intelligence in spatial or kinesthetic areas. So for example, a child who reverses letters or is dyslexic, may be seeing the words in more of a three-dimensional way, not realizing that others see the word left to right. They might mix things up because they “play” with the visual input in their heads. I’m probably not repeating this correctly, but it’s something I remembered reading.
Silvia, thanks for taking the time to stop at LD Blog and leave a comment.
I have not read Mr. Armstrong’s books. I’m sure I should. From what I’ve read on his Web site, though, I’m reluctant to agree with his views.
For example, proivided you’re accurately recounting his argument (and I take your hesitation about that honestly), then his argument has some substantial holes. First, I know of no scientific evidence showing that students with Learning Disabilities differ from their peers in spatial or kinesthetic competence. Second, as I’ve noted repeatedly, the idea that students with Learning Disabilities reverse letters and numerals inordinately is bogus (see these entries). Third, as intuitively appealing as the idea may seem, the application of multiple intelligences to schooling has been substantially oversold, as shown clearly by my colleague Dan Willingham.
Sorry to rain on his parade, but please feel free to drop a comment any time. And, good luck with your home schooling efforts.