Higher level thinking test questions: understanding and teaching

Books, Books, Books.  They were, and still are to be found in my home: magazines, journals, posters too.  Like the internet, books are connected, with ideas referencing backward through time.  For a reader, these connections can be a reason for recognizing the “new” ideas, or the new challenges, and even if one doesn’t enter into the conversation directly, the connections provide understanding and put into context what the author may have had in mind. – Fancy Literary Term: allusions- dictionary definition, simplified, to refer (back) to something else- a pre-internet form of links or “buttons” .  However there is a second implication in the term “allude” and it can be suggesting “implying”.  Students do need to understand both the actual reference in a piece of writing and the implications that a reader may infer, if learners are going to be able to “make sense” of formal Reading Comprehension tests- regardless of if the test is called “Common Core” in the States or E.Q.A.O. in Canada or given any other title in any other country.  Reading Comprehension testing and students scores improve when Poetry is both offered and shared in the learning process.

Why Poetry, and not merely any other form of writing, when poetry or analyzing a poem may only be a small portion of the exam/test itself? It is impossible to teach poetry without getting into or allowing for personal responses, opinions based on the combination of emotional response and the actual words on the page. Poems that “work” do so on many levels, allowing a variety of ages, and readers, to “enter into the imagery”, and be absorbed by the rhythm, before the analysis.  Poems that “work” may also be read from both the literal and the figurative (stance) – demanding a lesson into second readings, a scavenger hunt of sorts for clues within the writing which begins the practical aspect of what many readers do on automatic pilot: read it again. 

Descriptions on tests qualify questions, only a few instruct young learners to offer “proof” from the test reading or their own personal experiences.  The majority of questions aim to demonstrate that students were in fact tested, that the learner knew how to respond to a similar type of question.  And it is a “taken for granted” that as an educator one might be annoyed at the style or implication teaching to the test demands.  Yet I am not, for test taking needn’t be an overwhelming threat to one’s ability to demonstrate knowledge, nor ought it to be a frightening experience.  First the test itself needs to be placed in context,  that learners might see it as a positive challenge- give students a brand new piece of technology and ask them to “figure it out”, or a new game, or a new way of walking to school- each is a challenge- that requires putting together the old way – what one knows, with the new object- what one is trying to make sense of.  If the testing challenges do annoy me at all, it is in their very lack of “higher level” thinking questions;  learners of all ages do want a challenge to be challenge worthy- the prize is so much more satisfying then. 


Comments are closed.