I decided to focus on Chapter 34, “Nontraditional Forms of Assessment…and so forth,” for this blog because I am completely invested in the crafting and teaching of writing for my profession. Or, at least I think so. In this economy, though, one never knows where Death might be lurking. And by Death, I mean one’s next job. Don’t worry, none of this has to make sense because I make the rules- at least, that seems to be one of the concessions highlighted in this chapter. No, I don’t mean that teachers should, for the sake of alternatively assessing their students, throw the rules out the window and just let them fly freely fettered in parametrical chains. That’s moronic on oxycotton (i.e., oxymoronic). But I do feel that too much of the issues arising in this chapter are based on higher concerns that don’t regard the beginning learners.
It is important to see how things work. It is important to understand what one sees, as that is the only way to solve the problem of, “Well, how does this work?” I’ve argued this before, and I will again: when dealing with beginning learners, it is important that the teacher curb them just a little bit to highlight the patterns and consistencies in, well, any area of language. In the writing of English, it is important that young/early learners are taught how to craft a sentence. Or a paragraph. Or an essay. These are building blocks, you know. So when we dive into the argument of whether or not traditional testing/assessment has benefit in an ESL context, I think the whole thing foolish. There is a benefit to every form of assessment that has ever come (speaking from a limited knowledge pool here, I can only splash at that possibility with my floaties- forgive me for leaping) and will ever come because the core value of such procedures is meant to inform and to aide. Sure, some folks may have gone about it in a poor way, perhaps too inefficient, perhaps too lenient, too hard, off topic, whatever, but that merely laid the groundwork for the next idea that one-upped it. And traditional ways of testing are traditional for a reason- teachers have gone back to them time and time again. Are they right for everyone? No, and I’m not saying that. But for some, individually or grouped, these tests are both relevant and beneficial, and I think it folly to turn our back on them and leave them crying at the restaurant.
Finally, I liked the ideas that the author of that article was bringing to the table, the different approaches to assessment. Writing has been a tricky thing to assess, whether in a student’s L1 or L2, so the multitude of ways to navigate such a tripsy path can only be beneficial. But I have to draw a line when theorists begin telling teachers what they can and cannot say to students in regards to their work, as if teachers don’t have brains or don’t understand the psychological implications of the words that leave their lips and make impressions on young and sensitive psyches. I’m nitpicking at this point, but I can’t help it. That was a dumb thing to even put in a scholarly article, and if there is a population of educators out there that does actually intentionally and consistently make those mistakes, they should be fired, because they’re dumb too. Academic discussion here, right? Can’t help myself, I’m all jumped up on coffee and you’ve given me a free forum. Anyway, theorists should keep their thoughts and profounditites public, while also keeping their interpersonal advice private. People work through those things without the help of omniscient academia, and it’s arrogant to assume that they can’t. That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment