Refinish Shower Door Frame

The oral examination of the state and the crisis of productive thinking

concepts, concepts or processes: what we want, we know we should check - verify?

aiding Just one or two oral exams to see that, term paper aside, the questions are related to the "let's see if you know ...", or" I see what you say about ... " and "what it means ..". or "why such a thing ..."

In practice exam asks what the student may not know, as a kind of interrogation, which investigates the quality and quantity of the "readiness" individual.

There is a more just and full of useful information: ask what he knows as a result of her own work . Unfortunately, this can not be done now, without time for preparation of two or three years, without having chosen to give education to our students and another imprint.

Students are blocked, the oral, they do not know "that" thing more often because they do not understand what exactly is required at the time (the idea that lies in the mind of the examiner ) or because it was requested that the examinee is known only from other points of view.

In short, the student must adapt "himself" to what is requested by the examiner, who must only ascertain the degree of compliance and, at worst, the degree of "distance" itself from the student, the matter that he represents.

other hand, in an oral examination can not be a report profiling the approach of the examiner to the student's thinking in terms of interaction and mediation aimed to change the candidate's knowledge (as it normally occurs in the formative assessment during the 'school year). When this occurs the examination, only serves to underline the inadequacy of the preparation of the student.

Criticism

This type of oral examination is deeply wrong and reveals the failure of education.

It tends to verify the overlap of the preparation with a conventional syllabus that is given to shared and universal.

In reality there is no such universal syllabus and can not be required (even if we were in a school system the old-style) that should be shared.

The question like, "let's see what you tell me about ..." is less restrictive and threatening to "see if you know ...", but implicitly involves an error:" the argument that we require is of the utmost importance, tell me what you will be as respectful of knowledge universally agreed on this subject. short, "with what you say you can not mortify the official existing knowledge on this subject and my role here is to check that you do it. "

The error (the criticism) does not have to do, as you might think, with the yoke imposed by the challenges of official knowledge. Rather, the fact that no matter what the student is capable of producing (or was capable of producing in the past), in person, around or in relation to a theme, but what he is capable of reproducing the lessons from the sources.

If you ask "What is the enthalpy" or "what it means ..." or "because we put something in an instrument," means we want to ensure semantic understanding, conceptual, and functional objects, and some terms that we consider fundamental right in a discipline and, equally rightly, critical to the formation of an assessment. But we do what only a tiny percentage of the "baggage" specification, so it's not much point to the objective evaluation. On the other hand, the objective of verifying the understanding of the basic elements of a framework may be easily, smoothly and effectively reached with the appropriate test (and / or expect that has already been widely evaluated during the three years, so why not trust, therefore, of what has been done by the school? Only the school can be the guarantor of the evaluations that has developed, or prefer to have the commissars-inspectors to the work of schools?)

What if a candidate or an external teacher would put a question to the Committee on any matter common to the examiner? We can be certain that we would never embarrassing situations similar to those in which your candidate? As the knowledge of two teachers, in fact, two scholars of the same matter, are faithfully Stackable?

Finally, what remains in the culture of the candidate, as specially prepared on the basis of the examination, three months or three years after the test?

imagine that many will want to dismiss these criticisms, both because they include virtually everything that normally makes the oral, or because you have no experience of any possible alternative conduction examination.

So I propose to defer the knee-jerk reaction to criticism from pleading, after reading the following scenario examination - Just as natural - by which I hope to clarify the alternative, their purpose, and the implications for mountain education.

X The student is involved in the interview on the Y, with prof. Z.

Tell me X, I see here in your portfolio your application this topic Y 'you place in the fourth and then perfected in the fifth. Could you tell me what you discovered on this topic-research-study, and how? through what sources and what personal experiences? Maybe you could tell me then why did you approach it and, finally, what concepts of the discipline Y came into play and how?

The same is then repeated with other teachers in other subjects.

The Committee meets to assess the degree of mastery, authenticity of the applications described, processes and skills of argument that the student is able to implement, assisted by internal commissioners who know more about the history of the pupil and, in Based on these findings, determining to what degree the student has become "expert" of the discipline and the structured / marginal skills are used in relation to disciplinary nuclei in what he has produced (though not individually), but is able to master individually.

I believe that this type of test is much better indicator of the cultural depth of a student who is able to provide the appropriate emphasis to the outcomes that really matter, and can not be assessed in the written tests and a long path education, recognizing the processes of access to and use of knowledge that the student has built with adequate training during their school years; approach to knowledge and process skills that will be, these are important for a lifetime.

I believe that this kind of question is also easy to implement, with students having normal capacity, but would be made different from the present, from all the necessary preparation before.

The previous preparation

1. In each subject of three years each student should produce one or two applications-depth case studies, etc.. For each year, and possibly two in fourth and two in the fifth.
2. This work may also be carried out in collaboration with other students of the same class or different classes.
3. The work could have an immediate use, such as designing laboratory work or works to be carried out involving in teaching the class.
4. The work should arise from problems or internal stimuli to the discipline, and both teachers and students should be vigilant and willing to identify and propose development of curricular material out of the incentives are always present in the disciplines and their applications (this is for the respect of the same subjects taught and their cultural value).
5. The work would be required and would be in the portfolio shows the history of their implementation and evaluation.
6. The evaluation should demonstrate the degree of personal involvement and review, based on surveys of peers, teacher, and personal relevance to disciplinary action and once completed, exhibition of mastery (the ability of the student's argument as presented by himself). The evaluation should be expressed on each of these parameters on a scale of three values, of which the first and second would be acceptable and the third is the failure.

course, the student would know that the examination of his portfolio would have been considered and partially applied orally, allowing an overall assessment up 30 points or more than those obtained using the school credit.

What could this serve?

1. return the curiosity of the classroom;

2. introduce an element of personalization in education;

3. accustom the students to produce, rather than always play;

4. give everyone the opportunity to get acquainted with the deep understanding, at least on some issues of discipline or related disciplines;

5. reassess the value of cultural and instrumental disciplines, having independent existence from what is proposed by a single teacher and a single user (opposed to the tendency to identify the subject matter with the teacher or, at best, with the school textbooks);

6. empower students towards study as a custom development project.

The implications for teachers and school

The task of teaching should focus more on constituent bases, languages \u200b\u200band their meanings, to allow access to all basic .

applications than the current should be limited to allow development of custom work (unlike the so-called extra-curricular projects and papers, which come in addition to the work of the student, often ending up with the catch and to be realized in full only for some students).

The ability of the composition of written text, reading with comprehension should be performed on all subjects, including mathematics, not only in Italian.