 |
| Photo by Dustin Tray from Pexels |
The widespread use of standardized test in schools has
led to two phenomena: teaching to the test, and learning to the test. Teachers
know that their work will be judged according to their students’ test
performance. Therefore, they will focus almost exclusively on the material that
is expected to be in the final test. From the students’ side, they, too, will
learn almost exclusively the material they expect to be tested.
What is the problem with this? First, a lot of meaningful
and important material will be ignored, because learning it will have no immediate
impact. It will not be measured by the test. Therefore, neither the teacher nor
the students can expect to be praised for their knowledge of it.
The most important issue in testing is the validity of
a specific test. Validity means that a test measures what it is intended to
measure. Imagine a test for obtaining your driver’s license. If it would
contain almost entirely questions on car models and the history of car
production, it would be less “valid” than the usual tests, because it would
leave out information on traffic rules that are needed for every safe drive.
However, if the current-day tests would include information on how to maintain
your car (check the levels of oil and other liquids, fix small problems, etc.),
it should be more valid, because the normal tests do not test for those skills,
skills that can be, nonetheless, critical for safe driving. Why do they leave
them out? One argument could be that many such questions would depend on the
specific car model, whereas the tests need to generic enough, for all new
drivers.
Back to language testing. I had yearlong problems with
my German groups, because the standard tests for beginner levels at our school
focused almost entirely on writing, whereas my teaching focused on speech
production. In addition, test questions were basically grammar exercises,
whereas I trained my students from lesson 1 in the production of their own
sentences. This led to a lot of friction with students, who demanded that I
adapt my teaching to the test. At the end, I adapted the tests to my teaching.
And here is why.
If a language test is valid, it should reflect our
daily language use. It will have two components:
-
A universal
component which applies to all language users;
-
A specific
component which applies to the individual language learner only.
The universal component considers the following. Our
language use is mostly audio (to listen and to speak). Modern day technology
shows an increased trend towards even more audio due to voice-recognition
devices, and due to the fact that it will always be easier to speak than to
type. And we produce almost exclusively our own sentences.
The specific component could include learning an
accent or dialect for the region one wants to live and work in, or work-related
technical vocabulary.
(to be continued)
The GO Method
The GO Method applies quality management and psychological
science to the study of foreign languages. It helps students establish
individual and clear goals, build learning routines, overcome psychological
obstacles, monitor progress and systematize the learning process.
It is the perfect approach for high performer students that
need to speak as closely as possible to a native speaker. From lesson one, it
focuses on building your own sentences bottom-up, and not memorizing phrases
like a parrot.
Gerhard J. Ohrband
Psychologist and polyglot from Hamburg /Germany (*1979).
Married with children. MA in psychology from the University of Hamburg. More
than 15 years of experience as a university lecturer in psychology as well as a
consultant for UNICEF, Terre des Hommes, IOM, the EU and private companies.
Coordinator of the GO Method network, with representatives in more than 90
countries worldwide.
Contact
If you want to save time in learning a foreign language
without a teacher, please check out my book “The GO Method” on Amazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment