Friday 24 February 2012

Some woman at college - who is unfortunately also a ToK examiner - tore Catherine's ToK essay to shreds on grounds that included poor presentation, inadequate citation, undeveloped ideas... She covered it in red marks and sarcastic comments, including rings round all the contractions (can't, wouldn't etc) that help it 'flow' and are actually encouraged in customer communications and the like these days. I would like to ask her why she is so set against bringing writing into the 21st century. More importantly, what part of her brief is to reduce the ablest, most conscientious and most hardworking students in the college to tears and demand more rewrites, further total revisions, on an essay that will count for one mark maximum, when they already face a barrage of coursework and revision on their main six subjects? What part does sarcasm - destructive instead of constructive criticism - play in any serious teaching? As a ToK examiner, she must know what she's looking for, but the way to achieve it should be to build on the students' understanding, not destroy its foundations. If they've sat through 18 months of ToK without discovering what it is or how to write about it, doesn't that indict the ToK teacher rather than the students? Does it not occur to her how easily her condemnatory attitude could wreck the little confidence and fragile hopes that they rely on to get them through the final 3 months of schooling?