25 Biggest Mistakes Teachers Make and How to Avoid Them

124 Classroom Management and Instruction
at my table came up to me with his score. He told me he was so relieved that he passed
because he had copied all of my answers and then found out we probably had different
test forms. Luckily for him we didn’t, so he passed his test and graduated because
of me. When I complained to the counselor and they said they couldn’t do anything, I
flattened his tires!
Improper management of a
testing session permitted a student
to cheat and capitalize on another
student’s scores. Experienced teachers
use preventive measures and adequate
proctoring to discourage cheating.
Preventive measures include but
are not limited to using parallel forms
of the test, spacing students to make it
SCENARIO 15.4
Caustic Critique
difficult for them to see each other’s
tests, scrambling test questions and
creating corresponding answer keys,
or giving scrambled electronic versions
of the test. Wise teachers know
that proximity is often a deterrent to
cheating. Frequent proctoring and
scanning the room should minimize
or stop cheating activity.
I was a freshman in college, and I thought I had made it. I wanted to be a writer, and I
thought I could. I had been given so much positive reinforcement in high school. I felt
on top of the world. I handed in my first English paper to professor P. (I’ll never forget
his name). I anticipated greatness. As he handed my paper back, I flipped to the back
page, anxiously awaiting the glorious comments. The simple red print asked, “Is English
your first language?”
This scenario has two possible
angles: The student was deficient
in self-evaluative techniques
and the teacher was deficient in
effective assessment techniques, or
the student was a good writer and the
teacher was a sadistic critic. In the
first instance, the student possibly
had an overinflated sense of her writing
ability and the teacher’s grade
was justified but the comment was
unduly harsh and disparaging. In
the second instance, the grade was
undeserved and the comment disparaging.
The consequences of a dispara
ge ment model of assessment are
many. Foremost, a personal attack on
the student’s competence directs the
attention away from legitimate concerns
about the manuscript to personal
characteristics of the author.
This tactic contributes nothing toward
the improvement of the manuscript.
In fact, a personal attack may close
the mind of the recipient to constructive
criticism, destroy the writer’s
confidence, and discourage aspirations
of being a writer.
Encouraging educators would
instinctively know that sarcasm and
ridicule are not effective for improving
student performance. In lieu of the
disparagement model, they would opt
for a germination model of assessment
where the topic is the seed and students’
first attempts at writing are