Diana Senechal has written a parody of higher education today.
This is a college philosophy class in which the reading of Kant has been replaced with clickers for answering multiple-choice questions.
I have to give satire alerts because education policy has become so wacky that almost anything may seem real.
When the ideas from our leaders get so bizarre, parody becomes difficult.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Again, stupid leaders. Does Pearson sell clickers, too?
What do you conclude is stupid?
Of course they do.
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/product?ISBN=0805387285
Not sure, but you can bet they’ll put a “clicker component” into their next generation of texts. They might even write the software to use it and include a download with every teacher’s manual.
The one student that understands the philosophy (critical thinking skills), is being shut out. What happened to the discussions of a philosophy, reading and then writing on the subject? Being able to write and understand is key. Sounds like Walmart University. Haha.
How have you concluded that critical thinking has been shut out?
We are talking college right? I would expect more from my 7th graders.
Not sure what you mean here.
Ah yes, above all else we must actively engage the students by making the content pertinent to their every day lives. Their homework could be to tweet each other examples of “means” in their after school activities.
Here is a talk by Eric Mazer about how he uses clickers in the classroom. Warning: it is an hour and twenty minutes long.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWwslBPj8GgI
So multiple-choice is inherently bad and should never be used?
YES!
Well maybe the fact that one can then grade the scantron test in a few minutes and not have to waste any time with grading written responses, maybe, just maybe they aren’t inherently bad.
Duane, I know you’re steadfastly against any form of assessment. Looking forward to continuing our email conversation. I sent you a reply a few weeks ago but haven’t heard anything. Looking forward to your response.
Eded,
I’ll double check my email because I did receive it and sent a response. I’ll go back over and resend it.
And I’m not against “assessment” as I do it all the time in class. And I’m not against teacher made tests but am against any outside test. I have to assign grades but that is an activity that I find abhorant (I have no way of knowing what a student knows and grades are a rather imprecise mechanism) only do it because I am required to.
After being at UCLA recently for a meeting on charter schools with presentations by many from D.C. and seeing the total lack of intellectual curiosity of the students and staff I do not hold much credibility in that system. To prevent the presentation of counters to privatization, charter schools, they brought in the campus police. Is this what we want our students to come out with? We used to call them in the aerospace industry “Educated Idiots.” Might have a degree but know nothing and do not care to know much. I guess they have heard too many clickers and not enough thought and exposure to other ideas so as to have a broad view in which to make proper decisions.
@teachingeconomist After viewing the Mazur video I don’t think I heard him or anyone in the audiece mutter the words, “Formative Assessment”. That’s how he uses the clickers. He presents conceptual problems, uses the clickers to measure understanding, follows up with small group discussion to deepen understanding, then takes another reading.
It’s not the tool itself; it’s how you use it. As with everything…balance.
I certainly agree that it is all in how the tool is used.
Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with the technology per se. It can be put to wonderful use. It can be put to terrible use. But it should not be put to use simply because it is there. Formative assessment is a great use of this technology.
That was funny. I managed to laugh out loud, even though I am rapidly losing my voice.
Loved your piece, Diana! Alas, much of what goes on in English classes these days is like your kids’ Kant discussion. I had a young woman apply for a writing job at my company a few years ago. She had graduated from a prestigious writing program and an expensive private school. I asked her if she was familiar with the standard editorial symbols for doing substantive editing and proofreading. She said to me, and I am not exaggerating this: “No, they didn’t teach us any of that. We mostly sat around and talked about gender relations.”
Now, I am all in favor of talk about gender relations, but. . . .
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed it. Yes, I have seen (and heard of) many situations like the one you describe. I agree: the problem lies not with the topic of gender relations but with the fluffiness of the discussion (and the lack of concrete learning).
I thought clickers were used to train dogs—and quite successfully according to many animal behaviorists.
I use clickers (well actually I use a cellphone texting service) to get feedback from students in a large class.
This is great. Are we sure it’s a parody?!