SURVEY: Do Thai Students take too many tests?

[Scott]

There was a recent thread about education reform, again.   One of the proposals was for students under 8 years old to not sit for exams.   As it is now, KG students are often required to sit for exams.   In your opinion, do you think Thai students have too man exams?

 

 

 

[Samui Bodoh]

I did not vote as I simply do not know a definitive answer as I do not know how many tests Thai students take over their school years. Anyone able to provide that info?

 

That said...

 

There has been a trend in some educational circles for many years to increase the use of tests as a method of measuring results more accurately as well as for measuring the quality of teachers. I think this is a fair method to use, but it also needs to have strict limits placed on it for both students and teachers.

 

In terms of students, I would prefer a system of measurement that encompasses both testing (throughout the school year) and a general 'grade' on how that particular students fares in the classroom. Education is a process of learning to think and also building on what a person has learned before, and a final test that sums up everything will miss out on some/all the steps along the way. Further, I prefer a series of tests throughout the school year for the same reasons as the previous sentence. Finally, one last point regarding testing; it is not always an accurate measuring stick on how well a student has done. Many students simply aren't good at taking tests or even might just be having a bad day; should a poor grade be given to a student because they are lacking in the particular skill by which they are measured? That does not seem fair to me; better a cumulative grade based on classroom work and a series of testing.

 

One note of caution regarding testing for students above; T.I.T. Unfortunately, Thailand generally passes all students and generally teachers are open to... er... ahem... monetary persuasion, rendering the testing/marking system void. I do not have an answer for this.

 

In terms of teachers, measuring the quality of teachers based on their students testing outcomes is not a system that works well, nor does it work for long. The biggest problem is that teachers will "teach the test" and ignore everything else; if you were a teacher and your job performance and perhaps salary/promotion depended on your students' test results, wouldn't you teach the test? Further, let say a teacher manages to raise the level of a class' test results and therefore attains a bonus; the following year the students will unlikely be able to achieve the same growth as the slack has already been taken up, thus the teacher won't look as good. Finally, measuring the quality of a teacher solely based on students' test results is a cold method, and a good teacher is... er... 'warm'. If a teacher truly loves their job, treats the students with love and respect, and goes the proverbial 'extra mile' for them, that should be rewarded. Better a combination of student results and evaluations by the principal and by outsiders.

 

One more note, see paragraph above, T.I.T for all the same reasons.

 

To sum up, testing yes, but not as an all-encompassing method.

 

[connda]

I don't think that 'when' children are tested is an issue.  Imho, start them young and get them use to the process.  When I was a kid I enjoyed taking tests.

However -- the real question should be, "What are they testing?",  and, "What are the goals of the Thai educational system?"  I believe the educational system itself is deeply flawed and tends to be more of an indoctrination mill than a viable educational institution.  And the tests are measuring what?  How well Thai students are indoctrinated?  Because the numbers regarding math, sciences, history, social studies, and English puts Thai school children  scraping the bottom of the barrel internationally.  Having taught Thai English teachers I was left with the impression that teachers here in Thailand are an example of the blind leading the blind.  
Children are resilient and soak up new information like sponges if it's presented to them professionally by competent teachers.  So the kids have the ability to toe the line, of that I have no doubt.  But unfortunately most are stuck in over-crowded and under-funded schools where learning how to be a cowed, subservient, unquestioning, risk-adverse member of Thai society is more important than learning the core educational subjects in order to advance their level of knowledge.

Edited May 27, 2018 by connda

[jenny2017]

  Thai students have to write way too many tests, and testing Kindergarten kids is insane. But it's not only the quality of tests, it's also many hours of homework because teachers are not able to teach their stuff in class. 

 

One of my grade 12 students told me that they've got up to five hours homework daily, sometimes more over the weekend. But her classmates just copy from her and finally get a similar grade. 

 

Looking at several O-net tests, it's obvious that these tests do not show how good a student in a subject really is. 

 

Tests are usually made to check the students' understanding, but Thailand doesn't seem to get that. I've seen O-net tests where I couldn't find one possible right answer, or all of the answers were right.

 

Tests should be created by teachers who teach the students to check if the taught material was understood, or not. Only looking at most O-Net tests shows how strange these tests can be.

 

Here's one of the weirdest English test questions for M 6 students:

 

    

Q2: If you have a sexual urge, what must you do?

a) Call friends to go play football.

b) Talk to your family.

c) Try to sleep.

d) Go out with a friend of the opposite sex.

e) Invite a close friend to see a movie.

 

The creator of this question and a guy from TCT had a different choice what the right answer was. Of course, would we all choose d) Go out with a friend of the opposite sex, but this answer was wrong. 

 

  

 

   I think to talk to your family was one guy's right answer. Insanity pure. 
 

 

 

 

 

   

 

[Lunchbob]

They do not need any tests until they get past the age of 6 or so. After that, tests are no big deal if all other factors are normal.

 

 

[djayz]

Quality over quantity. 

Exams are pointless if they

1) don't have a predefined purpose and

2) aren't worth the paper they're printed on. 

 

[rkidlad]

Any number of tests is too many when you can’t fail. 

[Scott]

I know of schools who give written exams to KG 1 students.   They can't read, so the questions and answers have to be read to them.  

 

I have also seen young students (G. 2) get so nervous during tests that they peed their pants.   That's a lot of pressure at a young age.  

 

 

[Guest]

Kids should learn to love the knowledge they get from education. At start, teach them skills, which they can apply in everyday life and make them do the math in 7-11 or use English with foreigners. 

 

Skills, which can be transferred  to one's own life, motivate the kids to learn more as they get satisfaction from the previously done education. 

 

Less tests in paper. More possibilities to test the skills in life.

 

Personal take from my youth. I'm from Finland, where it's mandatory, yet not appreciated to learn Swedish. I had a bad teacher, who wasn't able to motivate the students who wanted life skills. Once I snapped at her asking wether we study for life or for the end exam. Her response was, for the exam... that year didn't go well for my studies, to be put nicely ? Later on I spent few summers in Sweden, where I filled my taxes, in Swedish and generally was able to communicate using the language with locals. I'm still proud of that, even if I still hate the language.. mainly because of that one demotivating teacher.

[Anak Nakal]

No test until 17.

Child should enjoy school.

[J Town]

1.  Been teaching in Thailand for 6 years and the school I worked for gave FAR too many tests, to the point we had to fudge a couple every semester. Add to that the fact that Thailand has the "No Fail" process, it makes most tests moot.

 

2.  Japan doesn't start testing until after grade 4 and it works VERY well!

 

3.  If you test a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will always be a failure. The same on testing a monkey on its ability to stay under water for hours at a time. All students have different strengths and talents.

[gandalf12]

What subjects are they studying for these tests? The art of weapons fighting or maybe how to lie convincingly? Both seem to be subjects they are well conversed in.

[wotsdermatter]

3 hours ago, J Town said:

If you test a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will always be a failure.

Please be careful and use and conduct proper research techniques before putting brain in gear and use a keyboard. There are at least three types of fish that can and do climb trees; the Mangrove Killifish, which inhabits coastal mangrove forests from Brazil to Florida, India has the Climbing Perch, and from Africa and Asia there is the Snakehead.  So, monkeys may be able to stay underwater.  Who knows?

Edited May 27, 2018 by wotsdermatter
more information added

[Wilsonandson]

Too much of this...

and not enough of this...

Edited May 27, 2018 by Wilsonandson

[Bluespunk]

Children’s progress (in primary at least) should not be measured in terms of tests but rather ongoing teacher assessment.

 

The teacher's judgements need to be backed up with evidence in the children’s books. 

 

Their needs to be evidence of a learning journey in these books where the teachers highlights areas if areas of success and outlines the next step in their learning and gives a clear, achievable learning objective. 

 

If there are assessment papers or writing tasks assigned for the same purpose, these should not be used for pass or fail purposes, but rather to back up teachers on going assessment or highlight areas for further focus. 

 

Tests are pointless unless used to help children progress.

 

Any teacher relying on them as a final judgement on how much progress a child has made, needs to seriously reconsider their career choices. 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Cadbury]

It doesn't really matter how may tests there are. I have watched my gf marking the paper tests. The students are asked a question and given three "tick-the-box" options as to which one is correct. One is the obvious correct box and the other two are the obviously stupid and incorrect boxes.

Even the biggest dumbos can manage to tick the right box and get the certificate.

Thailand education is going backwards at high speed.

[DrTuner]

Yeah, pretty much all of them. Rote memorization of non-existing "Thainess" and the checks to make sure the brainwashing has taken root is only useful for the Amart. State of the peasantry.

[Wilsonandson]

They should make tests more practical than academic. Like when you have a driving test. So to test someones language skills let's try a more practical approach. For instance a reading test. Put together an object using the English instructions. For listening, draw a picture of what you are listening to. For writing, write a poem. For speaking, order a pizza on the phone. Real life tests. The greatest test of all is to go to a country that speaks English and see how you get on there.

Sent from my SM-A700FD using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[J Town]

20 hours ago, wotsdermatter said:

Please be careful and use and conduct proper research techniques before putting brain in gear and use a keyboard. There are at least three types of fish that can and do climb trees; the Mangrove Killifish, which inhabits coastal mangrove forests from Brazil to Florida, India has the Climbing Perch, and from Africa and Asia there is the Snakehead.  So, monkeys may be able to stay underwater.  Who knows?

I thought it would have been a waste of time pointing out the exceptions to the rule. You helped make my point. Thanks!

[Srikcir]

The teacher should be the highest common denominator in the educational system.

In Thailand it seems the teacher is the lowest with bureaucrats being the highest. There is no reform in sight that I've seen that would change this status. So while there are teachers that would like to see more student engagement in areas of curiosity and debate, the bureaucracy retrogresses the system into the straight jackets of religion, tradition and culture. 

[greenchair]

Some posters have asked about the Thai system. 

In grade 1 to grade 6

70 percent of the grade comes from teacher assessment and 30 percent from the test. 

They test 4 times per year. Term 1 midterm, end term. 

Term 2 mid term end term. 

 

The problem with the teacher assessment in my parental experience was some students got GPA of 3.98. Because of teacher assessment scores But their testing scores were abysmal. 

My son was top 3 in every subject for 2 g6 classes, but his GPA was only 3.8 and only got that because I started complaining the teacher assessment did not match his academic reality. 

Because of their grade was so high in g4, g5 their parents thought their child was academically proficient, when in fact the child needed a lot more support. At the end of the grade 6 ,those children failed onet and though they had great GPA, were not able to pass any entrance test to high school. From 46 kids, only 4 could pass a high school entrance test. 

I'm glad the teacher did not like me that much and gave a low assessment. My son studied and tested outside school, so I always knew what help he needed. He passed every top high school that we applied and went on to a full scholarship in gifted ep. I felt sorry for all the parents that were lied to with fake teacher assessment. I would much rather the concrete test assessment.  

[Somtamnication]

To the headlines: YES!

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

To the headlines: YES!

Thai students test 4 times per year. 

How many tests would you suggest for the academically deficient child that cannot pass 4 tests in a year? 

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Thai students test 4 times per year. 

How many tests would you suggest for the academically deficient child that cannot pass 4 tests in a year? 

Tests are not a good indicator of progress.

 

The problems you claim exist with assessment are due to poor teacher behaviour, not assessment itself. 

 

Any teacher who relies on falsifying assessment data will also cheat to help chn pass a test. They will “teach to the test”. 

 

Ongoing assessment is much better than testing, when done correctly and backed up with evidence. 

 

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some writing to assess. 

[greenchair]

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Tests are not a good indicator of progress.

 

The problems you claim exist with assessment are due to poor teacher behaviour, not assessment itself. 

 

Any teacher who relies on falsifying assessment data will also cheat to help chn pass a test. They will “teach to the test”. 

 

Ongoing assessment is much better than testing, when done correctly and backed up with evidence. 

 

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some writing to assess. 

Ongoing assessment works really well for children that can't measure up academically.it is based on a mamby pamby system of everyone passes and nobody has to be accountable. The people that push for this system are parents whose children cannot make the grade. It's true that tests are only a good indicator of progress when measuring academia, but the same can be said that stud assess is only a good indicator of measuring social and artistic skills. Its  true good assessment is based on the skill of the teacher. Though teachers will always have their favourites and will assess according to that. It's most unusual for a teacher to cheat and purposely mark tests correct when it is wrong. They are more likely to boost scores through the assessment. That's why most high level schools ignore previous school GPA and prefer students to sit a new test set by the school. All those little sods are weeded out at high school and finally the academically adept are given a chance to work at their true level.

4 tests a year, paired with student assessment is not too much testing 

 

[Bluespunk]

49 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Ongoing assessment works really well for children that can't measure up academically.it is based on a mamby pamby system of everyone passes and nobody has to be accountable. The people that push for this system are parents whose children cannot make the grade. It's true that tests are only a good indicator of progress when measuring academia, but the same can be said that stud assess is only a good indicator of measuring social and artistic skills. Its  true good assessment is based on the skill of the teacher. Though teachers will always have their favourites and will assess according to that. It's most unusual for a teacher to cheat and purposely mark tests correct when it is wrong. They are more likely to boost scores through the assessment. That's why most high level schools ignore previous school GPA and prefer students to sit a new test set by the school. All those little sods are weeded out at high school and finally the academically adept are given a chance to work at their true level.

4 tests a year, paired with student assessment is not too much testing 

 

Clearly you know nothing about ongoing assessment.

 

It is rigorous and gives an accurate reflection of a child's ability and progress, when done properly.

 

There is no pass/fail. It is an assessment of the child's needs and areas for focus.

 

It is teachers who care for their students and want their needs accurately identified and targeted for progress who favour ongoing assessment. 

 

Teachers who are properly trained do not play at favourites, assessment is based upon the learning produced under strict success criteria rubrics.

 

The only way for children to succeed and reach their optimum level is by assessing their needs, targeting them and assessing again to identify new areas for focus.

 

Tests don't do that.

 

 

 

[greenchair]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Clearly you know nothing about ongoing assessment.

 

It is rigorous and gives an accurate reflection of a child's ability and progress, when done properly.

 

There is no pass/fail. It is an assessment of the child's needs and areas for focus.

 

It is teachers who care for their students and want their needs accurately identified and targeted for progress who favour ongoing assessment. 

 

Teachers who are properly trained do not play at favourites, assessment is based upon the learning produced under strict success criteria rubrics.

 

The only way for children to succeed and reach their optimum level is by assessing their needs, targeting them and assessing again to identify new areas for focus.

 

Tests don't do that.

 

 

 

Yes, you are correct. 

The assessments you are talking about, are great for low academic achievers. 

It means that you can focus on their strengths whatever they may be. 

These children will be guided into jobs like tourism, film, the arts, management positions. 

Nothing wrong with that. 

But gifted and high academic achievers thrive on tests. They enjoy the competition, and the scoring system. They battle with their mates and not winning is handled very maturely. Unfortunately, gifted children are given the backseat until high school. Where they are seperated according to their tested academic skills. They finally are communicating with children that are of similar minds. They are the engineers, doctors, physicists and pharmacists and mathematicians of tomorrow. 

I can see the merits in both. Unfortunately, you can't. 

[Bluespunk]

36 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Yes, you are correct. 

The assessments you are talking about, are great for low academic achievers. 

It means that you can focus on their strengths whatever they may be. 

These children will be guided into jobs like tourism, film, the arts, management positions. 

Nothing wrong with that. 

But gifted and high academic achievers thrive on tests. They enjoy the competition, and the scoring system. They battle with their mates and not winning is handled very maturely. Unfortunately, gifted children are given the backseat until high school. Where they are seperated according to their tested academic skills. They finally are communicating with children that are of similar minds. They are the engineers, doctors, physicists and pharmacists and mathematicians of tomorrow. 

I can see the merits in both. Unfortunately, you can't. 

Wrong.

 

The assessments I am talking about are for students of all abilities. They are equally valid for high achieving students, core learners and those in need of support. 

 

It is vital that high achievers are given feedback that allows them to make the progress they are capable of. Ongoing assessment does that. 

 

I do not guide children into careers, I enable them to achieve and make progress, assessment is the way to do that. 

 

There is a high emphasis on differentiation in teaching and that includes catering to the needs of gifted and talented children. Assessment is essential for this to happen. 

 

Tests do not help with this. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Bluespunk

[OldSiamHand]

12 hours ago, greenchair said:

The assessments you are talking about, are great for low academic achievers. 

It means that you can focus on their strengths whatever they may be. 

These children will be guided into jobs like tourism, film, the arts, management positions. 

 

I like the idea that low academic achievers will be guided into management positions - I can picture the interview:  "sorry kid, you're not smart enough to be a member of our staff, but would you be interested in managing our staff?"

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, OldSiamHand said:

I like the idea that low academic achievers will be guided into management positions - I can picture the interview:  "sorry kid, you're not smart enough to be a member of our staff, but would you be interested in managing our staff?"

Management positions only require the skill of managing which staff to put in which position and general coordination activities. The GPA requirement for uni degree in management fields is only 2.5 to 2.75.

Where as a degree in engineering or architecture requires a GPA of 3.00 to 3.5 .

Management positions don't require the technicalitis of physics, chemistry or even skill in the jobs that they are managing. A civil engineer and a manager are like chalk and cheese.