
Testing, the Chinese Way - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/weekinreview/12rosenthal.html?ref=weekinreview
======
Jun8
This sort of thing is not unique to China or "Asian cultures" but to all
underdeveloped countries with too few good schools, where going to the wrong
school can be a career death sentence.

Personal experience: I am from Turkey and had to go through two testing
periods that determined my life: One, at 11, that determined which secondary
school I could go to. Every private school had its own exam, so as a kid you
had to take 6-8 exams in about two weeks (the system has changed since then,
now there's a single exam).

The worse one was the university entrance exam (actually two exams, a couple
of months apart): close to a million people took it with me. The top
department in the top university admitted only about _50 students_ each year!
These 2-3 hours really determined your future, since if you couldn't get
admitted to the 1-2 popular universities your job prospects were pretty much
doomed. I still remember the hordes of anxious parents waiting outside the
building where the exam was held. The level of math and physics you had to
know/memorize was mind boggling; compared to that, the math part of SAT is a
joke.

I used to both envy the US students who didn't have to go through such a
grueling, trial by fire selection process to go to good universities and also
think that our selection process was much superior, since it it made you learn
much more. After finishing my PhD in the US, teaching classes here, and
working professionally, I now know that this is not true. This forced feeding
approach to eduction mostly produces socially awkward, nerdy people who are
experts but are not creative. I know, this is such a cliche, but believe me, I
can back it up from personal observation in the workspace.

I think, neither the relaxed, "it's the job of the professor to make me learn"
US college attitude nor the extremely competitive test based approach
elsewhere is ideal. However, I think the correct approach is much closer to
the former than the latter.

EDIT: Just remembered a personal experience that illustrates the point: I
recently interviewed at a software company. One of my interviewers of Asian
origin asked me an algorithmic question. I came up with an approach
(admittedly not very good) and tried to give my reasons; he wasn't satisfied.
At the end, he got up and declared "The answer is ..." He wasn't interested in
a _method_ or approach, but the _answer_. I think the worst thing that a test-
based education can enforce is this "answer worship", since that is such a
warped way to view problems.

~~~
mlinsey
The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle
ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career
lead to a ton of stress and probably aren't a good measure of overall
learning, many frequent tests that each individually aren't consequential
allow kids to get a sense of their progress with less of the stress.

I really liked the Prof's Cizek's quote in the article: "What’s best for kids
is frequent testing, where even if they do badly, they can get help and
improve and have the satisfaction of doing better,” he said. “Kids don’t get
self-esteem by people just telling them they are wonderful.”

~~~
wisty
The other point is that the tests should be "formative", which is
educationalist babble for "just for fun".

Frequent summative (non-formative, i.e. stuff that determines which uni you go
to, or whether you can progress to the next level) tests are bad and
dangerous, as they force the kids to conform every day of their lives.

If kids want to blow off a formative test, then it's no big deal. If a kid
makes a few silly mistakes, they don't have to beat themselves up. They
shouldn't have to (or even want to) stay up to 2am cramming. They should be
having fun with friends, learning to cook, playing sports, learning an
instrument, or hacking on their graphics calculators. But if they flunk, it
means they aren't learning, and something needs to be done.

------
vasi
It may be instructive to note that Finland is another country with a school
system that seems to do particularly well, and that is held in high regard by
other countries. In contrast with China, their system discourages standardized
testing, especially for young children—iirc, they don't even receive grades
until fifth grade. See, eg:
[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/globalization/f...](http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/globalization/finland-
whats-the-secret-to-its-success/206/) and
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html>

So what does this mean? Clearly there's more to it than just "more testing is
necessary!" or the reverse. Is the Anglosphere in some "unhappy middle", where
moving towards either more OR less testing would help? Is the amount of
testing in fact orthogonal to school performance? I know both Finland and
China are said to have high levels of societal respect for education, perhaps
that's the crucial factor—but I'm not aware of any good measurements of this,
maybe it's anecdotal.

Another hypothesis is that there's a fairly hard limit to how well children
can be educated at this point in time, and that the best schools in Finland,
China and the U.S. all near this limit. In China we only look at the best
schools and students, and with so many people in China the best will look
pretty good. Finland has very high equality and homogeneity, so the worst
schools aren't so far off from the best, and the whole country comes out
looking good. The U.S., however, has many badly funded schools and
marginalized populations, so that could make the difference. Then the question
becomes whether we can approach Finland's success, or if the Anglo countries
are too inherently different. Again, this entire paragraph is truly rampant
speculation, and my mind and gut are both skeptical.

Thoughts, anyone?

~~~
osdf
I like your comment. You probably are not German, but if, you would like the
texts of Reinhard Kahl (<http://reinhardkahl.de/>). His texts are basically
about the question 'What kind of school works', and actually 'What do we mean
by "school works"'. Among others he tried hard to demystifiying the success of
the finnish school system in the first PISA test, argueing against just
copying blindly some aspects that _seemed_ important (e.g. like you, he
pointed out that 'education' was socially highly respected in Finnland, unlike
in most other european countries). He constantly writes about (german) schools
that achieve very good results in tests like PISA, highlighting what they do
differently. It is quite interesting that he often finds methods or techniques
in these schools that fit really well a lot of findings in neuroscience and
psychology (without the teachers at these school knowing anything about these
findings!). So what are some things he advocates: (i) no longer teach in a
fixed classroom setting, instead, every student should learn by himself,
according to weekly/monthly/yearly plans that are setup together with his
teacher(s) [main reason for this: every human is special, our brains do not
develop at the same speed at the same time] (ii) do not kill the researcher in
the children, instead foster playfulness in live and study and show that
effort is something deeply satisfying (iii) Authentic teachers, authentic
parents, authentic grown-ups (iv) Bring the 'real' live/world into the school
(vi) open the school up to the 'real' live, schools should be centers in our
society, (vii) at school you don't teach subjects, you teach human beings
(viii) there is no school to rule them all and many more aspects. I like his
stuff so much because he shows and describes places that really work, and also
manages to write about philosophical aspects of these questions (he often
connects to writings from Hannah Arendt about eduction).

PS: I'm aware that I can't give justice to the stuff Kahl writes, what I have
written is quite incomplete. But one has to read it on its own. I'm also aware
that some of this stuff is only relevant for german schools, yet I think the
broader questions is relevant for all countries.

PPS: Refrain from calling me a hippy, a dreamer, a communist or any other
stereotype _you_ think is negative. I went through the normal (german) school
and university system and it gradually became clear to me, that things as they
were and are working are not as good as we want to think, actually, things are
rather bad. I'm looking for new ways and possible solutions, trying to find
the right questions.

~~~
vasi
Sounds interesting, do you happen to know if any Kahl is in translation? A
quick google picks up nothing.

I'm curious how he would explain the success of schools in places such as
Eastern Europe and China. More testing, regimented learning, little focus on
individual needs...these seems like the opposite of what he's recommending,
but it still works somehow.

PS: I think everyone on HN is a bit of a dreamer, no? :)

------
strebler
Interesting Chinese test taking fact: in the recent past, the final test in
high school in China (University entrance / SAT equivalent) was taken so
seriously that children who traveled (from more rural areas) would be given a
military escort in order to ensure they were present. The result of that test
basically dictated a major part of the rest of students' lives.

The test taking tradition is centuries old in China - one of the emperors
(forget which one) made many of the civil servant type positions require exams
in order to cut down on the cronyism that was rampant at the time. It worked
and the tradition stuck for quite a long time.

~~~
w1ntermute
> children who traveled (from more rural areas) would be given a military
> escort in order to ensure they were present

Reminds me of an article I read about South Korea, where the police escort
students to the big high school exam.

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1203397...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120339767)

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GK30Dg01.html>

------
albahk
Here we preach the startup mantra of constant feedback and correcting course
on your business in order to know in what areas you need to improve.

Why is it that different for kids that need to know, for example, that they
suck at multiplication tables and so need to improve for their next exam?

Sometimes we overthink things way too much.

~~~
jonasvp
Well, yes and no. Grades went out of favor because there actually is a
considerable body of research pointing to the fact that grades are harmful.
What they do is not simply pointing out weaknesses but establishing a ranking.
One schildert is suddenly 10% "better" than another because of that seemingly
objective number below the test.

It reduces children (who are sensitive to messages like that) from a full
person with a unique character to their performance as tested. If you haven't
yet developed the necessary cynicism to deal with this onedimensional
assessment of personhood, you will quickly. If that is actually desirable is
another matter.

------
psyklic
Tests teach discipline, and they are the most practical way of testing
knowledge in some areas. However, no matter how you make the metric, this
problem is largely psychological.

To do well, a student must be motivated to learn. And one of the biggest
motivators at this level is that "I always am at the top of my class in this
subject, so I enjoy it." Not everyone can be at the top, so naturally the
others won't care as much. They will stop trying to get an A and settle with
"not failing." And the students who start failing will stop caring completely.

If you hide a student's ranking, then that initial motivation, "I do better
than the others," disappears and we are left with students who must be
entirely self motivated. And that happens so rarely that it isn't a practical
motivator.

------
kiba
On one hand, a poor measurement of teaching performance do more harm than
good. However, it is also true that human judgement of student performance can
easily be skewed in various ways.

So, the solution is to find some kind of measurement that accurately reflect
somewhat student progress. This way, teachers can reliably test education
experiments. Of course, the larger problem is probably the teachers' possible
resistance to the scientific method and poor training in devising experiments.

~~~
celoyd
If you can come up with an idea of “student progress” that everyone can agree
on and measure, you’ve just solved education.

------
JoeAltmaier
If integrated into daily routine, quizzes are no more anxiety-producing that,
for instance, sprints as warmup in {name any sport}. It can be a fast way to
get the mental juices flowing.

This is way too much discussion about way too little. Leave it up to the
teacher to choose how and when to drill, measure, and stretch their pupils.

------
wslh
I didn't like the article, it seems like another absolutist point of view. The
answer is probably: it depends.

------
ahi
“Research has long shown that more frequent testing is beneficial to kids, but
educators have resisted this finding,” said Gregory J. Cizek, a professor of
educational measurement and evaluation at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.

How convenient that the "research" confirms his relevance.

~~~
aik
I completely agree. This article is full of oddities like that, drawing
correlations in places where it does not necessitate causation.

"These are not the big once-a-year or once-in-a-lifetime exams, like the SATs,
but a stream of smaller, less monumental tests, designed in theory, at least,
primarily to help students and their teachers know how they’re doing"

How profound. How exactly does that differ from current exams!? K-12 students
don't have once-in-a-lifetime exams - they have less monumental tests that
already take the focus away from what school is for - learning - not
assessing. More assessments will lead to more focus on passing assessments and
less focus on students and then less learning. Who can argue this? The fact
that Chinese schools may possibly (which I'm suspicious of in the first place)
have more tests, should in now way be seen as a cause for better learning.
Here are a number of things the Chinese do better than most in the states that
would lead to superior education:

1\. Parents are more involved in their kids education. 2\. Students are more
involved in their own education. 3\. Teachers are more involved in quality
teaching/mentoring. 4\. Teaching/learning methodologies are better.

How ridiculous.

~~~
rmah
"How profound. How exactly does that differ from current exams!? K-12 students
don't have once-in-a-lifetime exams - they have less monumental tests that
already take the focus away from what school is for - learning - not
assessing"

Many schools today have eliminated all tests for younger children. Think about
this. No tests at all, IMO, cannot be a good thing.

~~~
aik
In some cases I agree that eliminating all tests is bad, especially if nothing
else changes. It's especially bad when tests are eliminated without teachers
changing their style. If you're going to change one you have to change the
other.

Children do need to be assessed and challenged. Sitting a child down with a
pencil and paper is not the only method of assessing a child, and most
definitely not the most effective.

