|
Post by Otaku on Jun 10, 2008 12:57:49 GMT 8
I was thinking today that textbooks could have a built in point system and that every lesson could come with a little quiz. Whenever the student completed a quiz, they could receive a sticker for that lesson and the sticker could be affixed to a point system that would be located in the first and second page of each textbook in place of what I consider a waste of space right now with random pictures from around the world.
I think Japan's standardized English tests are a joke and would be better given on a more personal level where the quizes and results could more easily be monitored. However, this would require a level of accountability for teachers and there's where it would get a little shady...
|
|
yopparaisaru
Englipedia Fana
I drink copious amounts of fire and piss excellence
Posts: 312
|
Post by yopparaisaru on Jun 12, 2008 9:51:24 GMT 8
I think that could be a good idea, to maybe reach a few more kids to try and actually try and learn some english. But ultimately its still just a dead end in terms of the point of taking tests, which is to demonstrate the knowledge you've gained through learning said lessons. The problem is, and I'm sure we've talked about this before on other threads, that tests have absolutely no consequence on the life of the student. Barring their university and high school entrance exams, scoring well on standaridzed tests or semester exams mean absolutely nothing. I think if we really want the students to actively try harder on tests, and perform better on them then the japanese education system needs to enact harsher penalties for failing them. Like forced after school/summer school lessons or even in the harshest penalty of holding students back a year if they fail everything. The tests as they are now offer no stimulus to succeed. Also as far as I know they not required to present their test grades to their families. That I remember was a huge pressure on me to work my @55 off on tests, just out of the fear of showing my parents a bad grade.
Also on a sidenote I wasn't aware there were standardized English tests, are they regulated by the government them? And do average test scores affect government funding? As they do in the states now with the awful No Child Left Behind Act.
|
|
|
Post by duzzah on Jun 26, 2008 8:19:40 GMT 8
Japan greatly misses the point of tests. Yes, tests can be used to monitor student learning. But, they are ALSO supposed to be used to monitor the relevence and quality of materials and instruction. *GASPS* oh no! But what would Japan do when they are forced to realize through what tests results reflect, that the English education system here falls very, very short of any efficient language education system. Also, with classes only ever moving at one pace, and with no discrimination of level (since everyone just has to be in the same class), teachers will never be able to cater to students' needs. -Testing allows teachers to see some of a child's knowledge (though testing alone isn't a very good check). -Testing allows teachers to gauge student progress and adjust the speed and materials of the class to fit in with their current progress (or lack thereof). -Testing allows teachers to rework materials and units for future classes, so that you can hone the classes to be more smooth-running and beneficial to students year after year. Part of the problem lies in that the entire education system seems to miss two of the main points of testing, here. Maybe it has something to do with the "sensei is infallable" attitude. I'm sure you've seen those people--the ones who think they must be fantastic teachers just because they have the title 'sensei,' and thus if students ever have problems it MUST be the student's fault EVERY time because sensei is SENSEI and thus sensei is PERFECT. ... that goes for MEXT, too... "Students fail to learn because they are BAD students and not gambaruing enough. Our curriculum is perfect, for we are MEXT--the acronym that doesn't work right!" Which leads me to my last point, which is... the fact that teachers are supposed to be catalysts is largely overlooked. The theme here is 'sensei knows so his is a good sensei and you can learn a lot,' even though we obviously know there are some great teachers with a limited knowledge base and HORRIBLE teachers despite a huge command of knowledge in a particular subject. The role of the teacher making learning easier, thus, is often overlooked, I feel. If students cannot learn something, materials and lessons aren't revised, teachers don't assess what's wrong, and everyone hastily says that the students are simply not gambaruing enough. Great teachers would not require the same ridiculous levels of gambaruing. Students would learn more efficiently and actually have time to enjoy the last remaining bit of their childhoods. But that would require teachers to admit they're not perfect and actively seek to improve, and to admit that materials are not perfect and actively seek to improve them. We all know those things won't happen, so alas, I regress. /rant final note: Forgive me of any typos. I'm up to three broken buttons on my keyboard. ;
|
|