Matthew Arensdorf



Matthew Arensdorf

Intro to Writing

Annotated Bibliography

Arnett, George, Ami Sedgy and Mona Chalibi. “PISA 2012 Results: Which Country Does Best at Reading, Maths and Science?” . Guardian News and Media Limited. 3 December 2013. Web. 12 November 2014.

The Article starts out as a short analysis of the UK’s improvement in the PISA international testing as opposed to previous years. The author then goes into the Asian countries test results and by what margin they outperformed other countries. The article talks about the improvement and deterioration of well known countries in all reading, math and science. It is stated that boys typically churn out better results in math than girls and goes on to explain it as a lack of motivation on the female’s behalf. Before a list of each country’s score in the three subject, it is briefly stated that math scores can often be predicted by looking at that country’s GDP.

Because of the spelling of some words and the way the article was started by discussing the scores projected by the UK, I believe this article is directed toward a British audience. I found this article to be brief and only touch a few statistical matters in the results of the PISA test but helpful in the way the graphs and charts are set up. One part of the reading I do find peculiar is the part in which it states that women perform at a lower level than men typically in math. Not only to point that out but to further analyze it as a mere lack of motivation seemed most out of place. The information presented in the article statistically complies with the research I’ve done elsewhere and is mostly only an analysis of scores, and for these reasons I find it to be reliable.

Fry, Edward Ph.D. and Jacqueline Kress Ed.D. Excerpt from The Reading Teacher’s Book of Lists. Jossey-Bass 2006 5th Edition. Alternative Assessment Techniques. . Pearson Education Inc. n. d. Web. 7 November 2014.

This excerpt is intended to provide examination techniques for reading teachers to both promote and measure retention and proficiency in the student’s reading. To achieve this, four techniques are given as examples: retellings, portfolios, reading logs and checklists. The retelling method is a qualitative method in which a student would retell a story which he/she read as if they were telling it to someone who had not heard the story. A solid understanding is needed for an accurate translation of the story, which makes this method a fair one for assessing just what the student has retained from his/her learning. The next method promoted in the article is the use of portfolios. The idea is for each student to have a selective collection of the work they’ve done as essential bookmarks as they progress through the curriculum. Evaluation of portfolios are primarily discussion based and will be constructively examined by a student’s peers and examined, critiqued and graded by a teacher. For younger ages, it is recommended that parents also take part in examining their child’s portfolio to monitor progress. Reading logs are used as journals kept for independent reading. Students are to write about their feelings and reactions to their readings to aid in the retention of information as they read. Teachers may use checklists by asking students to provided periodic understandings of the curriculum to further help the instructor know where each student is individually in their learning. Students may employ the use of checklists for the very same reasons; they will know exactly where they are and where they should be in each particular subject.

I find that this excerpt would be primarily useful to the elementary school teacher as the methods described seem to be more intended for younger children. While the ideas provided were useful and easily understood, I feel case studies or statistics involving the methods suggested in the excerpt could have been well employed. This leads me to wonder whether or not these resources were provided in the book this was excerpted from. The purpose of the excerpt is probably to give teachers ideas for in-class success. Overall, the authors of the book do have the authority to speak of the subject but the website may or may not have a fair representation of the book.

Glaser, Sara. ”Intelligence testing.” CQ Researcher, 3, 649-672. . Web. 7 November 2014.

The reading primarily encompasses the pros and cons of traditional standardized and IQ tests. The article starts with a story of a boy who was given an assignment to creatively explain his idea of a futuristic city. His ideas struck observing educators as impressive enough as to wonder why he wasn’t in the “gifted” program at the school. It was because his test scores didn’t match up. Glaser explains how IQ tests go back to 1969 and the evolution of the public’s acceptance of the idea. She concludes that these tests only measure abstract reasoning and overlook creativity. It is stated that Arthur R. Jensen finds IQ levels to be genetic and tested with a study which confirms his theory by studying two twins brought up in separate backgrounds. Programs in the 1960’s were formed to raise the IQs of poor children who were denied quality education. Jensen finds there is a 15 point IQ difference between whites and blacks due to genetics while others reason that it is due to separation of the races, cultural differences and poverty that is common among the African American race. Stephen J. Ceci is tested and found that IQ typically rises as the amount of schooling an individual undergoes does the same. In the conflict of nature vs. nurture, Glaser points out, nature has long been the winner as result of many cases while acknowledging the difficulty of measuring the affect the upbringing of an individual has on his/her intelligence. Charles Edward Spearman found that often a student’s performance on one part of a test (English, for example) correlates with other parts of the test (math).

The studies found throughout this article are well cited and reflected and gives me confidence in the author’s credibility. The author remains unbiased and provides many ideas and beliefs of scholars and researchers with authority to speak on the subject. Being that Sara Glaser has written for The New York Times and The Washington Post and is obviously a writer for CQ Researcher demonstrates her authority to write for the site. She provides citations where there ought to be and credits the work of others. I found this article to be informative and fact based so as to appeal to both sides of the issue presented in the article.

“How Standardized Testing Damages Education.” . N.p. July 2012. Web. 31 October 2014.

Though it isn’t directly stated anywhere on the webpage, it is to my understanding that this article is a collaboration of Lisa Guisbond, Monty Neill and Robert Schaeffer’s studies though they may not be the authors. The purpose of this article is to denounce standardized multiple choice/short answer testing methods and promote other testing options to benefit the academic measurement and in-class learning of each student. According to the author(s), the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is pressuring schools to use tests to measure student progress along with quality of education. A link to a study shows the harmful affects of emphasizing tests. The article states that negative consequences, such as being held back, lead to negative results in academic growth. The author(s) then go on to say that these negative effects are directed mainly toward special needs, minorities, disabled and English learners. Because of the focus on tests, curriculums are narrowed, “while teachers cover only what is likely to be on the next exam.” The use of tests to measure an instructor’s ability to teach is referred to as a statistical roll of the dice. The article offers a suggestion of using multiple choice and short answer testing as only part of an examination process then goes on to describe a method of well respected educators reviewing a students work throughout the year to determine progress made to be graded upon.

Immediately after reading this article, I took notice of the sheer lack of resources cited and the overuse of terms and phrases such as “Measurement experts agree…” and “One researcher concluded…” without stating the names of the groups/experts/researchers. This surprised me because the credentials of the authors whom could have written this would lead one to expect their work to be more detail oriented and credit specific. This leads me to question who the author of this article is. While a lot of the citations are lacking, many good ideas and thoughts to dwell on and research are provided such as the suggestion for examinations and results of penalizing students for negative test results. For this information to be put to good use, I will need to further research the information provided.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. OECD Publishing, 2011. Web. 12 November 2014.

This volume is a collaboration of findings of the OECD and information from experts from the case studies of multiple countries and their performance in national educational testing, specifically PISA testing. I will be summarizing both chapters four and seven as they are most relevant to my topic. Chapter four focuses on the educational system of China, specifically in Shanghai and Hong Kong. The chapter first starts as an examination of the early cultural importance of education and thus, putting high importance on examinations and tests. A cultural revolution in 1966-1976 is discussed in which the education system went from a conventional system to one led by political groups, workers and soldiers. In 1970 to the 1980’s it is stated that China resumed its conventional schooling requirements of nine years. In the 21st century, China eliminated restrictions against any social groups to seek higher education. The author then goes on to talk about the teaching in china. The teachers get together at the beginning of each week to go over a single topic. That single topic is taught throughout the week to the students. Higher levels of teaching must be earned. Reformation of curriculum is an ongoing issue according to the chapter. Constant adaptations are made to better fit exams and the students’ understanding of concepts. Chapter seven focuses on the educational system in Singapore.

Improving the United States’ Educational Methodologies:

A Look into Educational Reformation through Testing

The United States’ educational system primarily uses a method of testing known as standardized testing. Standardized testing can simply be defined as any examination of an individual’s academic abilities taken measure by multiple choice or short answer tests. The answers given are later scored, recorded then ranked on an alphabetical academic scale. While advocates of this method agree this form of testing is fair in differentiating students academically, many will admit some peoples with varying disabilities will be tested unfairly. China places extremely high value on education and consistently outperforms the U.S. academically, specifically in the city of Shanghai. Much focus is put into examinations taken by students in Shanghai and multiple choice questions have been eliminated entirely. Some questions may not even be found directly in the course’s syllabus; therefore, the student must make a connection from what he has learned and take an extra step to think critically. Another country to routinely outperform the U.S. is Singapore. In Singapore, tests are made less a priority than learning through experience and engaged learning. Tests are primarily used to place students into programs in which they can learn most effectively. With this in mind, I will compare the United States’, Shanghai’s and Singapore’s academically competitive educational systems.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a program in which numerous participating countries’ students of fifteen years of age are tested triennially on their skills in reading, math and science. The scores are rated from first to last based on an average taken of all three subjects tested. China, because of its size and vast diversity, is routinely divided into specific cities for more accurate and effective results. Of the sixty-five participants in the 2012 examination, the top seven rated countries/cities were Asian. Three of those seven were cities from China. The United States placed thirty-sixth. This is very likely to be a reflection of inefficient test-taking and preparation in the U.S. educational system as a whole.

With the comparison of the United States to other countries in the PISA results of 2012, it is easy to see there is much room for improvement in our methodologies of testing. At the rank of thirty-sixth, the U.S. finds itself at the lower fiftieth percentile, a shocking statistic to citizens with high expectations of their country.  In a case where the president of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Detlov W. Bronks, testified against a leading preparatory school to the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. His son had taken an entry test mandatory to pass for admission and been denied due to his score a few years prior to Bronks’ testimony. The school told Bronks that the student did “not have the intellectual capacity for higher education.” Bronks’ son then went on to graduate at the top of his class, placing second, at Princeton. An accomplishment to that degree more than proves an intellectual capacity for higher education. While the story is compelling, this topic is slightly broader than a sole focus on an individual case study.

Standardized testing in the U.S. is generally a fair method of examination. Many people view standardized testing as a means of allowing talent and intellect not go to waste. With cooperation between high schools and colleges via SAT tests, a great deal of bright students are provided with an opportunity to extrapolate on their strong points academically, allowing them eligibility for scholarships. President Eisenhower promoted high-stake examinations to reduce academic waste among U.S. students by stating, “Much of this waste could be avoided if the aptitudes of these young people were identified and they were encouraged toward the fullest development of their abilities.” As shown in the Bronks case, satisfactory test scores are vital for admission to most universities. “Employing standardized achievement tests to ascertain educational quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon” (W. James Popham). Popham supports this statement by placing a spotlight on teachers. Popham argues that a closer monitoring of teachers ought to be mandatory in the classroom so as not to allow them to “teach to the test.” Instructors often will teach direct answers to questions that will be found on tests rather than promoting a broad understanding of the subject to be taught. In doing so, students recognize only certain cases of a subject that are likely to differ greatly from cases inquired about on these college entry tests. In Shanghai, exams are continually reformed to enforce students to apply their knowledge to equally reforming real life situations. To ensure effective teaching, teachers are very frequently observed in class by principals or district education officers. While in Singapore, teachers are put into training specifically for the subject and level of teaching they are determined to be doing. Teachers in training will either take a diploma or a degree course depending on their level of education.

China is a country that has built its educational system around rigorous reformation. In 1966, the Proletariat Cultural Revolution was established by Mao Zelong. This revolution led to the elimination of the teaching of anything pertaining to music, dramas or novels in an attempt to eliminate violence and bourgeois values. Schools were shut down as a consequence. It was not until the early 1980s that Zeng Xiaoping began a new revolution, reopening schools and reestablishing a normal curriculum that included subjects pertaining to music, dramas and novels. As a main focal point of mine, I will hereafter only being evaluating the Chinese city, Shanghai. In 1985, Shanghai was given jurisdiction over university entry exams. According to Chinese phraseology, “public examinations are the baton that conducts the entire orchestra – rather than removing the baton, the alternative is to modify the baton so that it conducts good music” (OECD). Student involvement aids hugely in the reformation of tests. To maintain the required, intense engagement in the classroom and outside the classroom for homework and often tutoring, curriculums are modified to suit the interests of students. Using an engaging style of teaching, a curriculum was introduced in 2008 that was comprised of three major parts: basic, enriched and inquiry-based curriculums. As you may easily infer, the basic division of the curriculum covers essential, common knowledge for basic learning at the level of education each student is placed. The enriched learning division is established to encourage students to take particular interest in one or more of his/her courses and delve more deeply into it. The inquiry-based portion of the curriculum is implemented through extracurricular and elective courses. Class is taught in accordance to the layout of the curriculum by teachers who have been trained specifically in the area they will be teaching. They are given a specific plan or “scheme” for the twelve to fifteen classes they will be instructing each week. Because of the frequency of the in class observations by principals and district education officers, teachers view their class sessions as performances or shows instead of teaching to accomplish a certain grade on a future test. Their teaching is based solely on the subject as a whole to provide a broad understanding rather than “teaching to the test.”

Just as quality instruction is ensured by evaluations in the classrooms in Shanghai, instructors in Singapore are rewarded for outstanding work with an annual share of a bonus pool and career opportunities that increase in pay and position. Primarily, teachers are recruited selectively from the top one-third of the secondary school graduating class. Internship opportunities are provided early for high school students and it is sometimes viewed as a positive aspect to recruit teachers well trained, but new to the field of teaching to provide real-world experiences for students. These high standards for teaching make for effective resources to perform well on the many high-stakes tests that are routinely required to go from one level of education to the next. In the early 1950s, Singapore found most of its two million people to be illiterate and unskilled, which sparked what came to be known as the “survival-driven phase.” A common value shared within the survival-driven phase was to produce a good man and a useful citizen. A low quality of education became apparent as a result of hastily established Singaporean schools for basic education. A teaching position was not respected highly for the low pay and lack of requirements. Because of this, in the early 1970s, out of every one thousand students in primary school, only about four hundred pupils would go on to secondary (fourth grade). To drive away from the one-size-fits-all approach to education and to better compete with other educationally successful Asian countries, in 1979 a system was devised to accommodate students at their varying academic paces. Multiple academic pathways were provided for different strengths and interests of the pupils. This system was devised primarily as a response to the lack of citizens to fill technical working positions. With this “efficiency-driven phase” only six percent of students were dropping out within their first ten years. In 1995, Singapore led the world in math and science on TIMSS. The “ability-based, aspiration-driven phase” beginning in 1997 was to promote the development of innovation, creativity and research. A higher funding for education was established and set forth a broader selection of courses. Schools were created to specialize in specific subjects such as arts, mathematics, science and sports as well as many independent schools. A Primary School Leaving Exam (PSLE) is taken at the end of primary school and rather than determining which level of predetermined subjects they will be placed in within a secondary school, they test into separate schools entirely based on their academic strengths. From there, opportunities are seemingly endless. Pathways to higher education can be found throughout Singapore’s education system by using various tests in with their focus being primarily on strengths rather than weaknesses compared with average scores of students throughout the country as the United States does.

As the PISA results of 2012 show clearly, the United States has more than enough room for improvement not only in our methods of testing but in our educational system as a whole. Shanghai uses a method of examination that is consistently reforming to conform to an ever-changing society. Using this method has assisted substantially in the success of their educational system. To help demonstrate the real possibility of change for the better in a deprived economic society, it is important to remember Singapore’s transformation from one of the lowest performing educational systems in Asia to one of the highest in a time span of only thirty years. Singapore, rated second overall by PISA, uses a system that implements testing in ways to further help the student succeed rather determining whether or not he/she will. This methodology may have the potential to avoid cases like that of Detlov W. Bronks’ son being denied eligibility to be enrolled in a leading preparatory school upon not meeting the standards required on an entry test only to graduate at the top of his class at Princeton. The strengths and successes of two separate countries with different cultures and values entirely ought not lead one to conclude the same results will be projected in the U.S. should any new methods be applied. The factors that go into test recording and application are numerous, specifically when compared internationally. More attention, research and support is necessary to extrapolate upon a fair testing (and all-around educational) system.

As a fairly successful student and product of the United States educational system, I have not experienced the worst of the possible outcomes due to unfair testing and learning. That does not mean it doesn’t happen to others, which it very often does. I am concerned only for the success of a system of which I am a part. Change is possible and the only way it can start is on a small scale. The sharing of ideas to implement tests or new methods of teaching differently is pivotal for an educational reformation even if only shared within in a single school district. I encourage you to share your ideas for a better education of American students and thank you for taking your time in allowing my research to influence those ideas.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download