<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nancy tells it like it is!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anne.teachesme.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anne.teachesme.com/2004/09/29/nancy-tells-it-like-it-is/</link>
	<description>Comments, reflections and occasional brainstorms</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.4-bleeding</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Wei Zhai</title>
		<link>http://anne.teachesme.com/2004/09/29/nancy-tells-it-like-it-is/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>Wei Zhai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://anne.teachesme.com/2004/09/29/nancy-tells-it-like-it-is/#comment-149</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Hey, Annie:



Yes, it's sad when teacher performance is only determined by test scores. 



It reminds me of Skinner's behaviorism, which claimed progress and accompliment of a goal must be able to be observed. What is cared is what a learner can do, rather what is going on in the learner's mind. 



I agree more with Piaget's cognitive development theory. He believed children undergo several stages developing their undifferentiated mental state to a higher level of mental state that allows them to logically, induce, reason, and solve complex tasks. However, the development from one stage to the next is not immediately observable. In this sense, being not able to do something is not equal to not learning or not knowing. 



So, back to Nancy's comment, students' test score is not an abosolute standard for teacher evaluation because it only tells a part of what students can do. 



I like this post of yours.



Wei
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a>Hey, Annie:</p>
<p>Yes, it&#8217;s sad when teacher performance is only determined by test scores. </p>
<p>It reminds me of Skinner&#8217;s behaviorism, which claimed progress and accompliment of a goal must be able to be observed. What is cared is what a learner can do, rather what is going on in the learner&#8217;s mind. </p>
<p>I agree more with Piaget&#8217;s cognitive development theory. He believed children undergo several stages developing their undifferentiated mental state to a higher level of mental state that allows them to logically, induce, reason, and solve complex tasks. However, the development from one stage to the next is not immediately observable. In this sense, being not able to do something is not equal to not learning or not knowing. </p>
<p>So, back to Nancy&#8217;s comment, students&#8217; test score is not an abosolute standard for teacher evaluation because it only tells a part of what students can do. </p>
<p>I like this post of yours.</p>
<p>Wei</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
