A very bold statement, I know, but one I fully believe the evidence supports.  The diagnosis of children with ADHD is growing every year in America and Canada and similar beliefs are starting to infect the rest of the world (as most things coming from the US have a tendency to do).  You could argue this is because no one understood it before and so now we are more aware.  You could also argue, as I do, that it’s because it doesn’t really exist.  Biological explanations such as genetics or neurochemical imbalances are more the realm of pop psychology and drugs designed to adjust those balances are an unnecessary cost that does not permanently address the issue.  This goes for most groupings of behavioral patterns currently defined as mental disorders, not just ADHD.

The spread of the disease model of certain behavioral patterns also has negative effects on how children perceive themselves, on how much responsibility we take for effective change, and for an over-reliance on pharmaceuticals instead of addressing our problems.

Below I’ll show some convincing arguments as to why this is the case, but first a few caveats.  I’m not arguing that the behaviors generally described in the DSM IV are a myth, I’m saying that the conceptualization of these behaviors as a chronic, possibly incurable disease, is not correct.  I’m also not saying that pharmaceutical drugs don’t provide some positive results (especially short-term), I’m saying there are better options for long-term, positive results.

-  My first argument comes from experience.  Working in a domestic abuse shelter, every child there was diagnosed with ADHD, usually among a host of other mental disorders.  We referred to the box of pills each child had as their treasure box since there were so many different pills in each box to be taken at different times throughout the day.  Parents and teachers alike complained that these children couldn’t focus for long periods of time.  Yet, these same children that I was told could not focus in class or at home, would sit and read Harry Potter books for up 2 hours at a time.  They’d read the entire book within days of picking it up.  To me, that states that the lack of focus had far more to do with their interest in the subjects adults wanted them to focus on rather than a general lack of ability to focus.

-  Following from the above, it became very clear to me that environment is key.  It should come as no surprise to most of us that children growing up in troubled homes have a host of behavioral issues.  In the same respect, while I was working at a university daycare, we could almost always tell who the professors’ children were and who the students’ were.  The professors’ children were invariably better behaved and had a stronger background in things like the alphabet or shapes.  It was also not uncommon for some of the more difficult children to come from single-parent homes.  All of this really shows to me that environment has an overriding influence on how children behave.

-  Many mental disorders, or at least their manifestations, as defined in the US are culturally bound.  Take for example that anorexia was unheard of in Hong Kong before 1994, but, after foreign newspapers latched onto a story of a girl who died from not eating, cases started popping up all over the place.  Or the fact that mental disorders like koro only exist in some East Asian cultures.  Or how about the fact that schizophrenia is much more common in developed rather than developing nations and that schizophrenia is episodic and disappears over time in developing nations, while in the US schizophrenia is more likley to be non-episodic and lifelong.

Scientific America – Foreign Afflicions:  Mental Disorders across Country Borders

NY Times – The Americanization of Mental Illness

Academia.edu – Schizophrenia across Cultures

PBS – Culture and Schizophrenia

-  Mental States are not defined by genetics.  In pop psychology, the average person’s understanding of genetics is based on a simplistic Mendelian model learned in high school biology class.  However, genetics are far more complicated than what we looked at in the simple pea experiments in our high school text books.  Genes do not determine behavior.  Mutliple genes interact in very complex ways (for example, eye color is determined by at least 3 primary genes and several secondary ones), gene expression is not a guarantee, changes over time, and is affected by outside (environmental) influences.

Stanton Peele – Genetics Can’t Save Us

Genetic Influences on Human Behavior and Development

-  The current argument for ADHD as a mental disease states that it is a result of inherited neurochemical imbalances.  However, there are hundreds of neurochemicals in the brain and they are still largely poorly understood.

Furthermore, neurochemical balances are constantly changing.  We have different balances when happy, sad, mad, etc.  The idea that an “imbalance” is a permanent state is simply not correct.  Additionally, chemical balances do not determine behavior.  For example, when someone steals your favorite pencil, you may get angry.  However, how you deal with that anger will vary by individual.  Some people will yell, others may get physical, others will hold a grudge, and others will talk it out.  In fact, how we deal with that anger and to what level we allow it to be expressed are all controllable.  The same goes for focus or any other mental practice.

Linking the influence of environment over determinstic biological explanations, we can look at alcoholism rates in some Native American tribes vs. some East Asian Americans.  Interestingly enough, some members of both ethnic groups lack a certain enzyme that processes alcohol.  This is why they tend to get drunk quicker and get red in the face when drinking.  However, incidences of alcoholism in some Native American populations, especially on reservations, is much much higher than among East Asian-American groups.

The truest fact about the brain is that it is constantly changing.  As the neurologists say, it’s plastic.  What we learn, the way we learn, how we behave, all these things can change depending on our internal and external environment.  Schizophrenia is a well-researched example that proves the point.  Despite many Americans viewing it as a permanent illness, according to one study, 58% of schizophrenics had a full long-term recovery after treatment.

Ultimately, there is not a single piece of evidence that has been shown that can physically identify a brain with a mental disorder from one without.  That’s why the DSM classifies disorders by groups of behaviors, not medically testable criteria.

The Huffington Post – Are Addiction and Mental Illness Really Brain Diseases?

National Empowerment Center – Evidence that People Recover from Schizophrenia

Pseudoscience in Psych

-  My final argument is actually a counter argument.  Some of the greatest supporters of disease models are the diagnosed themselves.  It’s not uncommon for those with ADHD or Depression to site the drugs as a huge help in their life.  As I mentioned above, it’s not that psychiatric drugs can’t help individuals attain a place to more easily address their issues, it’s that we can come to rely on them without addressing the real problem or building the skills to change our mental states in the future.  Like in my example from the domestic abuse shelter, medicating the children will not address the problems occurring at home nor teach the child how to better deal with those issues in healthy ways.  People drink alcohol to forget about their problems, too; it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.  It’s easy enough to go through life using alcohol or other drugs to cope with difficult situations, but it doesn’t help actually solve the problem.  In the same way, drugs like Ritalin can help us focus, but they don’t help us develop the skills we need to do so on our own.

Additionally, there is very little evidence that current drugs prescribed for various mental disorders have any strong positive effects.  Stanton Peele points out that studies which use a psychoactive placebo indicate an average of 5% increase in positive behavioral outcomes vs. the actual drug.  That’s not much and it’s a pretty strong argument that mental outlook goes a long way to changing behavior.  As further evidence, there are a number of rigorously conducted studies that indicate positive results from cognitive behavioral therapies that didn’t use psychiatric drugs.

Psychology Today – Can Talk Therapy Help Persons with Schizophrenia

What’s really tough with all of this is that it puts the responsibility for children’s behavior on the main role models in their life, mostly the parents and teachers.  Taking responsibility for something we perceive as negative is never easy, but the truth is not always the easiest pill to swallow.  For adults (in cases like adult ADHD), it puts the responsibility on us and the loved ones in our life.

To summarize, I’m not denying that behaviors associated with ADHD or other disorders exist, but that they are simply behaviors or mental states that we can change with the help of those around us, just like any other behavior, emotion, or attitude.  Maybe in the future psychiatric drugs can help as one part of a treatment plan, but we currently don’t have enough evidence to support such use and it’s clear that traditional support and counseling can work better.  For children or anyone else to be healthy, contributing members of society, we need people who take responsibility for themselves and others, who can solve problems on their own, and who can develop the skills that will help them throughout their lives.

Now it’s your turn.  What do you think and what research do you have to support your opinions?

More Further Reading and References:

Prozac Nation – An Interview with Lawrence Kirmayer on Mental Illness across Cultures

Washington Post – Culture and Mental Illness

Science Daily – No Single Gene for Eye Color

Genetic Influences on Alcohol Drinking and Alcoholism

ADHD is  Myth with Professor Spillane

Joel Turtel – The Myth of ADHD

BBC – Louis Theroux Looks at America’s Prescription Culture

The Onion’s take on things

How often do we hear a littany of complaints from our young learners:  “Teacher, Johnny hit me!”, “Teacher, Emily took my pencil!”, “Teacher, Billy isn’t paying attention!”?  When I first started teaching young learners, my immediate reaction was to be the problem-solver, to fix the situation for the students.  Luckily, I worked at a daycare with some great teachers who always had a saying, “I’m sorry.  I don’t listen to tattling.  Why don’t you talk to Child about how you feel?”.  Many children use tattling as a form of attention-getting, revenge, or a way to assert power over another, none of which foster a caring and supportive classroom.

That’s why, these days, when a child tells me another child hit him/her, I say, “Not my problem.  You deal with it.”  Just kidding .  But I definitely don’t solve the problem for them.  I think it’s so important for children to learn conflict resolution skills at an early age.  Helping children to deal with difficult situations, control their emotions, and communicate effectively will serve them well for the rest of their life.

Instead of being the problem-solver, I simply act as a mediator.  I help the children openly discuss their feelings with each other and encourage them to look at the situation from the other’s point of view.  I then encourage them to discuss solutions.  This process isn’t always easy and children will need lots of support, but the pay off is more than worth the time and investment.

Do you have any personal success stories using this type of mediation?  How effective is it in your classrooms?  Do you have other preferred methods of conflict resolution with young learners?

Related Articles:

Conflict Resolution with YLs

Dave Dodgeson had a post a little while back on the benefit (or lack their of) of observation feedback.  As a trainer and manager, I also often wonder about its efficacy.  These sessions can often be charged with tension or result in few changes if not approached or conducted in the right way.  I’m sure we’ve all seen that teacher storm out of the feedback session in anger or tears.  However, observation feedback can be a fantastic tool for professional development, so what are some ways to make the most of it for both teachers and trainers?

For teachers:

-  Be open to the feedback.  Approach it as a discussion and opportunity to develop rather than as an argument.  I have experienced teachers that argue about every little thing.  The point of the feedback is to look at what worked and what didn’t, not necessarily the reason it was done.  Feedback is also not about being right or wrong; it’s about what we do with the information that helps us improve.

-  Seek to understand.  If you are unclear or disagree with a piece of feedback, try to understand where the trainer is coming from before getting defensive.  Asking open questions will help a lot here.

-  Discuss the observation in question and don’t take it personally.  For a particular piece of feedback, some teachers will say, “Well right, I usually do that, but when you were watching me I didn’t”.  You’re not discussing your lessons in general, your discussing the lesson that was observed and in that lesson you did not do X.  The fact that X wasn’t done well does not mean you are a bad teacher, it means, for that lesson, X was not done well.  As a trainer, I think the greatest potential for conflict in feedback comes from this tendency to take any criticism of a lesson as a personal attack on general character or ability.  Try keeping things in perspective.

-  Focus on what you can do to improve when dealing with corrective feedback.  One of my favorite phrases is “reasons are not justifications”.  Sure, Johnny may be really loud and obnoxious.  That’s your reason for giving him less attention in the class.  However, it doesn’t justify the fact that he’s receiving less opportunity to develop compared to others in the class.  We often have a strong tendency to use reasons as excuses to not make things better.  Instead, think about “what I can do better”.

-  Take notes or request a copy of the feedback if one isn’t provided.  Refer to these notes the next time you plan a lesson.

-  Ask for specific examples on how to improve.  If a trainer says, “You should encourage more student talking time”, make sure the trainer provides you with examples.

-  Create a simple action plan.  Choose three things you can improve starting from your next lesson and determine how you will implement those changes.  If you walk away from the feedback without making any changes, what was the point of doing it?

For trainers and managers:

-  Ask lots of open questions.  Let teachers uncover the feedback on their own rather than delivering it to them.  They will be much more receptive and the process of reflection yields much better results in terms of implementation for future lessons.  A skilled trainer can actually get the teachers to find all the highlights and criticisms on their own.

-  Prepare.  Before you meet with the teachers, sit down and think about what you will focus on and how the conversation will progress.  Think about how the teachers will react.

- Stick to the facts.  State observations and results rather than opinions or judgments.  You can’t debate or argue a fact.  For example, “I noticed you interacted with Johnny much less than with the other students.  As a result, he only produced 3 sentences the entire class and there were fewer opportunities to assess his level or correct his language.”  The teacher can make all the excuses they want, but that doesn’t change the fact Johhny was not interacted with and produced less than the other students.  It’s also not something open for challenge whereas a statement like “you need to engage the learners more” is.  This also avoids the huge pitfall of pronouncing judgment on a teacher as in “You’re not showing any improvement”, which will create large defensive reactions.  Instead try, “In the past 3 observations, I have not seen improvement on X.”  Notice how that statement sticks to the facts, localizes the issue, and focuses on what you have seen rather than on what the teacher hasn’t done.

-  Be specific.  Vague feedback is the worst.  Things like “that was a great lesson” or “you should be more clear” are extremely unhelpful.  What was great?  When and how should I be more clear?  When observing, make a note and then make sure to note down the details of the situation or exactly what was said.

-  Be flexible and adapt to the situation.  Sometimes teachers just need to hear the positives to help encourage them to continue. If a teacher had a really bad lesson, they probably already know it.  There’s no need to point it out.  On the other hand, some teachers won’t show improvement without additional pushes.

-  Give feedback as soon as possible.  It becomes less likely to have an effect the longer you wait.  Scheduling the feedback session along with the observation time is a good way to do this.

-  Keep it simple.  While you can discuss a number of points if you want, the meat of the feedback should stick to 3 highlights and 3 areas to improve.  Anything more and the conversation will lose focus.  Teachers are much less likely to make changes if there is too much as well.  They could become overwhelmed or they could focus on the least important areas.

-  Always finish with an action plan.  Ask the teachers what immediate changes they will make regarding their planning or teaching after the session is finished.

-  Follow up.  Make notes on what should be improved and then check in with teachers to make sure they are following up.  Also, by noting down what your teachers are great at, you know who to send people to with questions in a particular area.

Do you have any other tips for either teachers or trainers when it comes to observation feedback?

Related Posts:

Observation on Observation

Getting Classroom Observation Right & Misfires in Classroom Obs (6 parts)

A Personal Misfire as an Observee

Sometimes we teachers have a habit of preparing a lot of activities. We all dread that moment when we have ten minutes left in the class, but realize we don’t have anything else planned. So what do we do? We plan a bunch of extra activities just in case.

Here’s the problem though, a classroom isn’t about doing activities, it’s about learning. A successful lesson is defined by the amount and quality of the learning that occurred, not by how many activites were completed. Sometimes it’s a good idea to step back and look at our lesson and our lesson plans. Are they just a series of activities or can we visualize the learning occurring? Is our goal to take up space in the lesson or maximize the quality of the education delivered?

The next time you plan an activity for your class, take a moment to really look at it. Is it just a space filler or is something really valuable being done?

Image courtesy of nightmaremode.net

As a learning director of a private language institute, there is one question I ask myself over and over again every day: “Is what I’m doing right now the best thing I can be doing to help our students learn?”. It’s such a simple and obvious question, but I’ve found that we don’t ask it nearly enough.

I have tons of competing priorities every day. Often I have to make a choice between such things as supporting an upset teacher, helping a learner whose parents lost their book, cleaning up a classroom, or filing some paperwork every ten minutes. When all these issues constantly crop up at the same time, I just ask myself that simple question and make my choice.

This question doesn’t just focus on the students though, even though at first glance you might think that. It encompasses every choice and action throughout the day. Should I spend extra time planning my lesson or use that time to read a research article on teaching? Is complaining about my day making anyone else feel better about being here and will that in turn help the students in all of our classes? Is staying out for that one or two more beers going to affect the quality of my lessons tomorrow? Will going out of my way to welcome a new teacher have a positive effect on their teaching?

As a teacher, and especially as a manager, we affect the quality of learning at our school far more than just in making choices involved in lesson planning and delivery. Every choice we make at our school whether it affects other team members, the students, or even the cleanliness of the school all contribute to creating a quality learning environment for everyone. Often, even many of the choices we make away from our schools affect the quality of learning, too.

How do you prioritize your day? How do you make choices between all the competing demands on you? Do you always make the choices that benefit your students?

Image courtesy of Provinciales Primary School

What’s your vision of the ideal classroom?  Is it a classroom where every learner sits calmly and quietly?  Do students always raise their hands before talking?  Are they always focused on their task?

In my experience, this is what’s passed down to us as the ideal class.  But whose ideal class is it?  The teacher’s of course.  The teacher is the one who wants all the students sitting quietly and listening only to them.  They don’t want the chaos of 20 students all talking at once.  Every student should be focused on their task whether they find it interesting or not.

My classrooms rarely fit this vision because I think learning is loud.  Learning is messy.  I try my best to make learners interested in my lessons.  They don’t sit quietly because they aren’t going to get a sticker, they’ll be put in time out, or I’ll yell at them.  In fact, they generally don’t sit quietly at all.

When young learners are engaged in a lesson, they’re excited; they want to shout and move around.  A loud classroom means that they’re really happy and enjoy what we’re doing, which will make them feel positive about English and learning.  What more could I ask for?

It’s also great practice.  Sure, I could have students raise their hand before speaking, but then only one student would speak and they’d only say one sentence.  Letting them all shout out the answers, or shouting to be chosen next, or shouting to say what they want to do next is great.  Sure it’s loud and chaotic, but not only are they getting tons of practice, they’re using English to express themselves.  To say what they want to say and to get their desires and interests across.  They’re speaking in their own voice, and not just when the teacher says it’s ok.

I also love projects and tasks and role-plays where all the learners are trying it together.  Will some get side-tracked?  Of course, they’re only 5 years old.  But what would they be doing otherwise?  If you only have one pair of students at a time do something, then the others will simply be bored in their chairs and not learning anyway.  At least if they all participate, they’ll work with each other.  And the surprising thing is, most of them will do the activity to the best of their ability.  Even better, they’ll start teaching each other.  There’s nothing cuter than seeing a five-year-old teach another five-year-old how to buy fruit in English

Yes, my classrooms are loud.  Yes, learners are often moving around and may get off task.  But they’re also learning to express themselves.  They’re learning to take responsibility, share, and help each other too.  Learning may be messy, but there sure is a lot of learning, even if it’s spread all over the classroom floor

Image courtesy of UpwardAction.com

Perhaps an obvious question, but one I find is not often thought about. As teachers, there are a lot more people involved in the education of a child in our classrooms than just us. Education has many stakeholders. Perhaps the most important are the learners themselves and, in YL classrooms, the parents. Then you have the teachers, the administrators, and the curriculum developers as well.

We don’t teach in a vacuum and, as teachers, to do the best we can for a child, we need to align all interested parties. We may think we teach the best way, but if the parents don’t believe it, they won’t support you at home. If an administrator doesn’t believe it, you’ll face a lot of conflict in the school. If you don’t believe in you’re curriculum, you won’t be enthusiastic about the material you teach.  All these people want what’s best for the learners.  Everyone will have differing ideas on what that is and part of our job is to foster cooperation and support so that children can get the best education possible.

As a teacher, how do you involve others in the lives of your learners and your classrooms?  Could you foster more learning by thinking about the wider circle outside your classroom?

Courtesy of Public Speaking for Kids

Two dialogues from classrooms with very different learning environments.  Can you guess which one allows for more learner autonomy, emergent language, and student participation?

S: Ehm, how old is your father?
L: My father is forty years old. And how old is your father?
S: Fifteen years old.  How old is your mother?
L: My mother is thirty-nine years old.
S: How old are you?
L: I’m twelve.  How old are you?
S: I’m eleven.  What are your foreign languages?
L: My foreign languages are Sport, Textil.  What are your foreign languages?
S: My foreign languages are Biologie, Textil and German.
L: Ehm.
S: Oh, ah how ah how ne, what is the name or your father?
L: The name of my fater is Felix.  And what is the name of your father?
S: Ehm, the name of my father is ah Bernd, ah.
L: What’s the name of your mother?
S: Ehm, ah, my mother’s name is Maria.  And your mother’s name?
(Legenhausen, 1999:  166-167)

L: What should we talk about, Claus?
C: I don’t know, we could talk about our music group ‘Big Engine’.
L: Yeah, that’s a good idea.
C: I think it’s fun.  Now we have to play, ah , record our tape.
L: Yeah, the first time.
C: Yeah, it’s very exciting.  I have made a cover to our tape at home.
L: That one you showed me?
C: Yes.
L: The only thing it’s beautiful.
C: Beautiful?
L: Yes.
C: It’s lovely. (Laughing)
L: I think it’s good, too.
C: Yes.
(Legenhausen, 1999:  167)

In the above two dialogues, the students were put into pairs and given the very basic task of simply talking to each other in English for a few minutes.  The dialogues are from two classrooms of the same level and age but different countries with different learning environments.  Which one do you think comes from a classroom where children are given their own voice?

The first dialogue is from a German classroom where children learn from a textbook and follow a fairly prescriptive progression of learning targets.  The second dialogue is from a Danish classroom where learner autonomy is encouraged, the voice of the learners is listened to, and choice is an integral part of the learning process.  In the words of Legenhausen,the researcher who conducted the study, the learners “do not construe a contrast between authentic and didactic tasks” (Legenhausen, 1999:  181).

This was a post I’ve been yearning to write for a while and Dave Dodgson’s recent post told me the time had come.  Dave reflects on why, after years of English language instruction, learners still have poor communicative ability.  As Dave hints at, I think the key lies in the contrast we see above.  Text book type teaching and prescriptive curriculums simply don’t engage learners.  Further more, the English language becomes only something used in the classroom; it’s not seen as a part of who they are or connected to their life.  For language to be truly internalized, it has to become part of a learner’s identity, not something done to them at school.  What do you think?

Courtesy of http://sokoloperkovuskeci.com

In my last post I talked about throwing exams out.  In this one, I’ll discuss how to use them.

I believe the greatest mistake made with assessments is that they are viewed as an indicator of worth, either the student’s or the teacher’s.  An assessment does not tell you if a student is smart, a hard studier, or good at English.  An assessment does not tell you how effective a teacher is or how much they should be paid.  Tests should never be used in the sense of pass/fail for either teachers or students.  Using tests in this way ignores the realities that most tests are not designed well, don’t necessarily measure what we want them to measure, don’t take into account the level and needs of the students, and don’t encourage mistakes or skill development.

Assessments are merely a tool like any other in the teacher’s toolbox.  If used correctly, an assessment can show you where students are struggling and what areas were not taught well.  If the class average is 80% and Jimmy only got a 20%, it’s  a good bet he needs some extra help.  If everyone got that question about the present perfect wrong (not that anyone ever really understands the present perfect ), it’s probably because it wasn’t taught well.

The greatest value of assessments come from the practices we put into place after viewing the results.  Assessments should help us determine where to go next.  If Jimmy is doing so poorly, we now need to find out why and come up with a plan to help him to better.  If none of the students understood the present perfect, we need to find out where they are confused.  We then have to look back at our lessons on it and determine why we failed to create the conditions for learners to grasp the concept.

Assessment doesn’t just tell us what went poorly, it also tells us what went well.  If all the students got something right, it must have been taught effectively.  We should ask ourselves how we can use elements of that lesson to help teach other aspects of the course.  It also tells us which students are up for more of a challenge.

What do you do with the information you learn after giving an assessment?  Does it influence where your attention is focused, the direction you take, the amount of material you cover, what you review?  If not, maybe you shouldn’t bother giving the test in the first place

Related Posts

Assessments – A Look Back at Getting Rid of Them

Crazy or Enlightened

Joe Bower- Why Do We Give Exams?

Courtesy of Zhi Shan’s Blog

If you’re a long-time reader, you may remember that at my previous school I threw out exams.  Students moved up or down levels based completely on mutual decisions between the teacher and student.  If you’re in a position to do so, I highly recommend giving it a try.  Below I’ll share some of the feedback I received from teachers and students.

Feedback from teachers:

- Some teachers felt it would be difficult to determine what level a student was and especially whether or not they were ready to move up.  My answer to this was that we had small classes.  Teachers should be informally assessing their students at all times.  Want to know if your students have a decent understanding of past simple?  Ask them what they did yesterday.  Simple as that.

- Without an exam, some teachers weren’t sure what the goal posts were and where they should be headed with what they were teaching.  My answer was to ask the students where they wanted to go.  Additionally, assess their needs and fill in gaps by creating lessons that use what they know, but challenge them to take themselves to the next level.

- Some teachers liked that fact that they were be able to take the lesson in any direction they wanted without having to tailor everything to an exam.  This was a key reason for my decision to remove exams.  There would be no more teaching to the exam and no more limiting of what was learned simply because they wanted to focus on what students would need to pass.

-  One thing teachers really liked was that students focused on improving.  Beforehand, many students would do nothing, but then cram for exams in an effort to pass.  Sometimes students might pass an exam even though there general language ability was clearly far below what the exam indicated.  Students saw that improvement was dependant on them and came down to how much work they put in.  Once students realized this, they became much more engaged in lessons and focused much more on self-improvement.

From the students:

-  They thought it took a lot of pressure off.

-  They liked having a say in whether or not they were ready to move up.

-  Some students felt uncomfortable about not knowing whether or not they were making progress.  They felt they couldn’t see results.  This sometimes had a negative effect on motivation.

Summary:

When I first talked to the teachers about trying this, I wasn’t sure it would work. After doing it for about 6 months, it was clear that it was working.  Students no longer felt the need to take formal exams.  Especially helpful was the larger amounts of feedback teachers started giving students in one-on-one discussions.  Students and teachers also became much better at consistent informal assessment.  I also felt that teachers really became more aware of their students and they needed to really look at how their students were doing to help plan the next lesson or set overall directions for a student or course.

In addition, like I mentioned above, we stopped having students that would slack through courses only to try and pass desperately at the end.  They realized they both needed to actually improve and to prove that they had improved to the teacher in order to advance.  I think this is one big reason students started to rapidly advance through levels.

Well, that’s a decent summary of some benefits and potential hiccups to eliminating exams.  At my current school, I am back to adminstering exams.  Most teachers the world over have to adminster exams, so, with that being the case, what’s the best way to look at exams and how should teachers use them?  Find out what I think in next week’s post.

Related Posts:

Assessment – What is it Good for?

Crazy or Enlightened

Joe Bower- Why Do We Give Exams?