Педагогические науки /5. Современные методы
преподавания
к. филос.
н. Тинякова Е.А.
Сергиево-Посадский
Филиал НОУ ВПО
«Московский институт
предпринимательства и права»
Test technology demands new methods
In the center of educational
process there is the dialogue
“teacher−student”. This dialogue goes from a far ancient past, but
nowadays it has becoming new features: the role of independent work grows,multivariation
of interpreting teaching materials increases: on the one hand different
conceptions in science, on the other hand−differing ways of presenting
them on the part of a teacher. In Russian high school syllabuses the teaching
time at day departments and extra-mural departments stands in contrast,
sometimes one and the same discipline
has many teaching hours at day departments and amazingly few teaching
hours at extra-mural departments. From the view point of a high school teacher
it is kind of test on the choice of the most important for a learning process.
Sometimes a teacher is almost bewildered how to compress the material. Is it a
drawback or a merit? Let’s answer from the point of view of a student. At day departments the material is checked in a
bigger space, at extra-mural departments it is checked in its essence. True to
remark that the material, checked in brief at extra-mural departments may be
expanded by students themselves,there is no prohibition to it. This vivid
example testifies to the fact that the contemporary educational process has
been becoming more free and on the
level of higher education−the most. Educational process is not
strictly closed by teaching syllabuses. But this situation is fraught with
danger of anarchy in learning; everyone knows that one wants. The restriction
to this situation is the manner of checking learning results (credit tests,
exams, etc.). To overcome the abundant checked space the technology of testing
has taken dominance. But incorrect checking spoils results of teaching. The most
wide spread mistakes in testing are: alternatives in answers are formal and sometimes mislead so that a
learner would not have thought of the mistaken variant (then testing this way the exactness of knowledge may be spoiled);
answers make kind of robots of students because they are devoid of individual
thinking; calculating of points for correct answers turns into an exhaustive
final perspective. Testing has been introduced into teaching to achieve
objectivity of assessment but in reality it producestension and various conflict
discussions (as an example we may refer to the situation in Russia with school
graduates). Still every mark and a step
of assessment is individual. It is real that global testing has lead to the
loss of humanistic relations between a teacher and a student in the form of a
dialogue when they can discuss the results at once. The objectivity of testing
has been caused by disbelief in just
teacher’s assessment. This reason is not good and since the source is spoiled
then further developing may go on not the right way. So may happen with
testing.One more dark shade of testing. It makes a long distance between the
fulfilling of a task and its consideration (very often checked tests are never
discussed, students are оnlyfaced with the results−quantity of points. To discuss the
results of tests are more difficult than oral answers when a teacher has the opportunity to correct mistakes at once.
There is one more psychological reason of test difficulties: when the cognitive
matrix of a test lacks universality then
such a test has many problems in being understoodby students−this
is just the reason that sometimes good and very good students fail to do a test
successfully. Productive technological demands to testing can be as follows: 1.
choosing the most important and cardinal material to be tested (very often
tests include cunning rare questions, especially in the Russian language; the
author of a test is looking for rare most difficult questions, but misses the
rules on which literacy is based; then tests turn into riddles; such type of tests may be given for students as
optional, but not as main testing); 2.necessity to make a test universal,
independent from methodical variations in different manuals (remove such a situation
that a test is done after one manual and another manual can’t be adapted to the
correct answers); 3.test questions should not be boring, of one type, otherwise
students may think slower; 4. on the
eve ofa test students are to be trained on analogical questions to pave
intellectual paths while making a test:
5. a teacher should build a testing space (probably in the form of oral
discussions) around the general test for students to have an opportunity to
somehow discuss the tested material; 6. teaching space must not be overloaded
with numerous tests, in this case a teacher will take away a very precious
trait of learning−creative thinking which is always individual, a teacher
should be very wise to combine integrity, objectivity and universality of educational
process with individual ways of thinking; 7 strictness while testing should be reasonable, not causing a shade of
fear (though nowadays students have become very anxious about their marks,
especially at secondary general schools
and professional ones; in tests it is sometimes more difficult for a teacher to
explain the results because in tests there is no space for considerations and
sometimes students can’t be guided to the correct answer through rigid test
answers, they need explanation to be guided to the correct answer step by
step), every test needs a clever psychological approach on the part of the
teacher to remove tension on the part of the students.Let’s venture to make one
more remark concerning information status of testing. While making a test a
teacher tries to split content tested into small portions. But information
development of contemporary teaching tends to deal with an ever growing flux of
learning material. Then testing stands in contradiction to huge information
space: there rises an alternative−either numerous items in tests or
fragmental testing. But of course said above doesn’t cancel testing as a
control procedure. Tests will suit to check some parts of teaching curricula
and syllabuses, but in Russian education testing sometimes substitutes exams and credit tests, on-line exams are
popular to achieve objectivity in marks. Here we come to a very acute problem
of education on all levels (particularly in Russia)−a mark has become a
very disturbing factor in learning. From this point of view tests bring
objectivity into assessments of learning work.
Литература
1.
Аванесов
В.С. Композиция тестовых заданий. Учебная книга. 3-изд.-М.: Центр тестирования,
2002.-240 с.
2.
Гулидов
И.Н., Шатун А.Н. Методика конструирования тестов.-М.: Форум-ИНФРА-2003.-110 с.
3.
Майоров
А.Н. Теория и практика создания тестов для системы образования.-М.,2000.-352 с.
4.
Пугачев
В.П. Тесты, деловые игры, тренинги в управлении персоналом. Учебник для студентов вузов.- М.: Аспект Пресс,
2003.- 285 с. (с.27-29).
Внимание!
Обратите внимание на уточнение указания места работы
автора Тиняковой Е.А., статьи «Социально-политический резерв исторического
аспекта русской традиционной культуры»,
включенной в сборник материалов V111 международной
научно-практической конференции «Образование и наука без границ», “Naukaistudia” (Przemysl, Польша, 2013)−стр.
55-60.
Политология/5.
Политическая социология
К. филос. н. Тинякова Е.А.
Сергиево-Посадский филиал НОУ
ВПО «Московский институт
предпринимательства и права»
Социально−политический резерв исторического
аспекта
русской традиционной культуры