[MUSIC] >> Let's start again with talking about the purposes of assessment because I think what would you say is that teachers all agree that assessment is about improvement. But to me that seems a little bit problematic - I don't think in reality that's actually what's happening, is it? >> Well, you know, you're really asking two different questions: what teachers believe and then what actually happens, which may or may not have anything to do with what teachers believe. Teachers' beliefs do pay off in terms of their intentions and actions but they're constrained by policies and practices around them. Generally young, enthusiastic, new teachers have lots of ambitions but they're controlled and constrained by systems they work in. However, the educational part of educational assessment is meant to guide, improve teaching and better learning. And to the extent that assessments serves that, that's what teachers believe in. That's what they want. I don't think there's a single teacher in the world who doesn't believe I'm a better teacher today than I was a year ago and I hope to be a better teacher than I am now in five years. Giving teachers tools that allow to monitor their own work. so that they can find out, do I have to keep teaching this? Can I move on to something else? These kinds of tools are welcomed by teachers, who are generally professional in their attitudes towards their function in education and schooling. >> Very optimistic attitude, I think. A very optimistic picture of teachers as a whole. >> Well... If you don't start with this optimistic attitude, you're likely to end up blaming teachers, and believing we can hire machines to do what teachers do and create curricula that are teacher-proof. And we've already tried a lot of those things or are implementing them in evil jurisdictions like the United States and England, and we know it doesn't work. So, let's at least take advantage of the fact that teachers kind of believe that doing better is what I'm here for. >> Although, what you just alluded to, of course, is the policy context in which all that's occurring. So, to hold on to that belief and be optimistic about it in a context which is really quite oppressive is actually very challenging, isn't it? >> Well, certainly if you have to work in an environment that's contrary to your beliefs, you either do one of two things; you either comply and end up believing in the status quo, the power system that enforces on you; or you go quietly mad; or you end up leaving teaching. So, what our research shows is that teachers who work and continue to work in high-stakes exam societies, like Hong Kong or China, end up believing that "By examining children, I'm helping them improve", so they rationalize and justify the things they have to do in light of the things they believe in. I think this is the human condition. >> The teacher condition. >> Yeah. >> But when you talk about, and interesting that you talk about Hong Kong, because you contrast Hong Kong and New Zealand. >> Yes. >> Could you elaborate a little on that? What are you seeing there as the key differences? >> Well, the big difference is the extreme reliance in Hong Kong, as in China, on examinations for selection, sorting and determining future. The Hong Kong research we've done shows very clearly that children, even university students, believe that failing to do well brings dishonor to their family. And that has huge repercussions in their societal framework. New Zealand gave up using exams as a roadblock to entry to further schooling as early as the 1930s, where we abolished the standard six. And then, we have open entry to the university. So, you failed everything, but now you're 21, you can you can apply to go to university. They can force you to take prerequisite courses, but you have a right to attend. So, we have a system that says diversity of achievement and plurality of means to achievement in New Zealand leads I think to much more content and happier people because we don't force everybody into the mould of schooling is preparation for university entrance. Hong Kong used to have a vocational technical ed high school right up through to the time of the British leaving, but Chinese parents refused to send their children there, because working with your hands is not valued. >> That's very much a British legacy, isn't it? >> It is. >> You say you've escaped from that in New Zealand? >> Well, to an extent we have. I think being shut off at the far end of the world for so long and the 1930s in New Zealand was a huge movement of social welfare, social justice, a labor government, housing, healthcare, and the then secretary of education, Cyril Beeby, was very influenced by Dewian notions of the child is the center of the curriculum and the whole reason schools exist was for the child. So, creating artificial roadblocks to the child developing in high school other than economic necessity, seemed just pointless to him. And so we've moved a long way down that path. The post-1980s Reagan, Thatcher - Rogernomics in New Zealand - policies are now playing out we can see-- well, I suspect that our current conservative government is trying to move us more and more down the U.S. free market solution to educational problems. And God help us. >> I did the OECD review in New Zealand a few years ago. And was very impressed, I think. And I think among the systems that the OECD have said are furthest ahead in a lot of respects were actually New Zealand and Hong Kong, but you've made a good case I think for putting New Zealand at the top there. >> They're very different, and part of the difference lies down in my mind to, what do you value? Do you value conformity to the collective? Or do you value variety, plurality, and individuality? My own children, one of them earned entry to university, but instead of going to do a B.Com, she went into a private training establishment, did a diploma in fashion design, and now works in the head office of an Australian fashion house. So, we don't have this narrow view that the only route to success is a bachelors degree. My oldest boy has got a bachelors degree but he had got a diploma and a, you know, certificate and took a roundabout route. This is something we permit, but in societies in Hong Kong and China, they're terrified to permit that. >> Yeah. Let me ask you one last question, Gavin. You talk about praise, and that's interesting you do, you're very skeptical, and very challenging on that whole notion of praise. As a kind of final question, say a bit more about why that isn't such a great thing - because you know, you're doing such a great job here by the way, you know! >> Well, the bottom line is, as far as I can tell, students don't expect the teacher to be their mother, so your mom is going to love you no matter what you do kind of thing. But what kids need and want from a teacher is someone to tell me, "Okay, if I'm this good, what do I do to get better? Because I'm still not finished with this schooling". And, this is the problem with praise is we're really bad at giving it out in a meritorious way. Johnny's not a high achiever and he finally does something decent, and you know, it may only be average to quality work, but we make a big song and dance out of it because Johnny normally doesn't even do any work. Whereas, here's the kid who's a top flyer, hands in their work quickly and so the teacher then marks it with a red pen and points out all the spelling mistakes. And doesn't compliment the child on having done excellent quality work and the kid gets this experience of being, well, you know, I just got shamed because I did-- don't even know that they're doing good work. So, the notion of why praise doesn't work is it draws attention away from what do I have to learn next, what am I good at, to who am I and what I'm worth and valued as a human being. Now, everyone's worthwhile and valuable as a human being, but not everyone can do reading, writing, mathematics or geography to the same extent. And the research is really clear - we improve with feedback and feedback has to identify where you're good, where you're not good, where you're up to in the progression and what you have to do next. And if feedback doesn't do that, then we've wasted the educational opportunity. Now the challenge with with children who are miles behind is how do you tell them the truth without destroying them? Yeah, and that's another problem. >> Something we don't really wish to do. I know we're going to go on in the second and third weeks to talk a bit more about those kinds of issues, but does make me think, you know, about Willard Waller talking about cheap praise, and that devalues the currency and kids begin to know what's real and what's stupid. >> Absolutely. Frank Baharris and I think it was Patricia Graham, did a wonderful study they published in 1998, in which they described teachers as acting like psychoanalysts and trying to position their response to each child based on what they understood about the child's personality or psychology, and the kids knew that that's what they were doing and the feedback they got from the kids was "Just tell us the truth!" You know, it just makes life a lot simpler. I don't like to tell you this Johnny, but this performance is well below what's expected of somebody like you - and guess what? Here's what you can do, and here's what I can do. And I sometimes suspect that teachers don't bite the bullet of truth because they're afraid that'll cause them a lot more work to do fixing the problem, or else they might not really know what do I have to do. And if you think it's all the student's fault - they haven't worked hard enough, or they don't try hard enough, or they don't pay attention enough - then it's really easy just to "Oh, you're doing well", and give cheap and mollifying praise when it's actually uninformative. >> Okay, that's a pretty good headline, which "I'm biting the bullet of truth". I think we can use that one. Good! [MUSIC]
