Just make it up.
by danielagins
A major mental alarm just went off in my head and I am scared beyond belief right now. We are creating a generation of liars. Okay, that might be too strong – but not too far from the truth.
I am in the middle of grading some position papers from my 8th graders as our wrap up to my unit on the paradox of modernization. Admittedly this “paper” is more artificial in nature than I would like, as it is part of a lesson I had to design for my practicum class in my masters program (a lesson which I am seeing now, was designed rather poorly). Despite the heightened artificiality of it, I am seeing some stomach churning, rib stinging, cold-sweat-inducing issues that are totally removed from my specific lesson. These issues I am having such a hard time dealing with are directly related to the nature of “teaching to the test.” The test I am referring to is our state writing prompts. These prompts require students to take a stance on an issue presented, one in which they have very limited background information aside from the paragraph introducing the prompt. The students have 45 minutes to complete this persuasive piece, usually framed as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper or something along those lines. These prompts are then scored holistically based upon how well the student elaborates and uses persuasive techniques like, you know, statistics and such in their writing. Okay fine. Makes sense, right? We cite sources to add to the strength of our arguments. It seems like an important skill for them to have. Here is the problem – the prompts the students are asked to write for the state tests are out-of-the-blue topics. As I stated earlier, the only real background information given is in the paragraph introducing the prompt. So where do the kids get the statistics for their prompts? They make them up. That’s right. They imagine experts and statistics that will support their stance and include them. They lie. The more they lie and the more creative their lies are, the better their score will be. Viewing this with a behaviorist lens (Skinner, Thorndyke, etc) leads down a scary path indeed. Rewards in the form of acceptance (teacher, parent, societal) for high prompt scores derived from making things up to support your claims will not yield long term favorable results.
So what about reality? What about when they are asked to write a position paper where they have, say, an entire units worth of information at their disposal? It seems that they fall back to the tired and true (and continually reinforced) method of making things up that suit their needs. I dread the type of “informed” 21st century citizen this kind of education produces. I feel paralyzed and helpless in my attempts to change it.
The irony of my blog title in relation to this post does not escape me.
Thank you for a most thought-provoking post. It might be a bit easier here in the UK but it still raises pertinent issues.
I wonder to what extent we do not give enough time for guided research and whether reasoned argument does give way to ‘creative writing’. Is there the possibility that in the pressure to get ‘the syllabus’ covered teachers in most subjects might be tempted to ignore plenary sessions, rush thinking time, dismiss reflection, accept ‘short cuts’ or not ‘show their working out’?
Dan,
I admire your on-going pursuit of a pedagogical stance that makes sense to you and what you desire for your students. It takes both humility and courage to operate from within that space on a continual basis. You should be proud of yourself.
My sense is your students are not “liars” so much as they are exercising their capacities to hypothesize and create. They are also employing their rational intuition (loosely meaning everyday conjectures based on their “gut” and prior experience). And, unfortunately, they are “doing school” i.e., exercising their rights and will in subversive ways to comply with the demands put upon them by all of the entities you mentioned in your piece.
How would it be if you looked on your students and always assumed they are doing their absolute best at every moment to make it through the day, hour, assignment, etc.? What kind of solutions (and shifts in attitude[s]) would/could you adopt if you repositioned yourself in that stance–one of good will (towards yourself) and pedagogical care (towards your students)?
Keep pressing brother. And keep refracting!
Peace.
GNA
GNA,
I’m trying to process all you’ve said here. My intent was not to call my particular student’s liars in the pejorative sense. What I am trying to get at is that they are encouraged in the state testing prompts to make things up when they write. So pretend, for example, their writing prompt was “Should schools ban soda machines?” They are rewarded for making things up like:
“According to a recent survey, 72% of students drink too much soda”
or
“Dr. Soandso recently reported that there is really nothing wrong with soda”
or
“I polled some students in the hallway and they said that the soda machines would increase school revenue by 29%.”
None of these examples are based in reality. It is a parlor trick to show the state scorers that they know how to be persuasive. My gripe really isn’t against the kids by any means. It is against the system that rewards this behavior for such inauthentic tasks. I am frustrated that this trick carries over into situations where legitimate sources abound. It is obviously more work to synthesize information and use it appropriately than to make it up. I don’t expect them to be experts as 13 year olds and I do expect to have to hold discussions concerning how to best find and incorporate this information. I simply wonder if these discussions would be more effective if the students did not have to compartmentalize “real writing” from “prompt writing.” They are being asked to play by two sets of rules. The prompt set (make it up to show you know how to be persuasive) and the real set (use legitimate facts, statistics, etc. to show that you really understand the concept). Obviously this is confusing to many 13 year olds given their typical level of cognitive development. I am grappling with the best way to help them differentiate the two. My personal frustration lay in the fact that I thought that as a class we had made the distinction clear prior to the assignment.
Thanks for both the encouragement and the pushback!
Aaaaaah. For me, this is the key issue: “My personal frustration lay in the fact that I thought that as a class we had made the distinction clear prior to the assignment.” How intriguing that it came at the end of what your wrote. My sense is your discontent is focused on the miss-communication you experienced with your students. You assumed they understood the difference, but after examining their work, you realize they did not. Why? What could you have done to test your assumption? Or test their understanding of the assignment (and of the differences between the two types of writing)?
Frankly Dan, you and every teacher on the planet who cares about kids is disturbed by the same issues you raise in your post. My big picture question to you is: what is your revolution? Does it have to do with the injustices leveled upon kids and teachers by state/national standards? Or does it have to do with something more intimate–like the relationships you have with kids and their families? Or something else? If your most interested in doing right by your students, then focus on improving your pedagogy (which I think you are) by hypothesizing, testing, refracting upon, and revising your practice (which I think you do).
Final note, check out http://www.scribd.com/full/31512693?access_key=key-2bgpnneohca56wbwihot (it is a model I use w/ my students to guide their development of habits of pedagogical thinking). And also http://www.nl.edu/academics/cas/ace/facultypapers/StephenBrookfield_Wisdom.cfm (an essay by one of my mentors Stephen Brookfield critically reflective teaching).
Keep pressing brother.
GNA