Comments on: Guest Post: Seminary Assessments and Americacentrism

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 15:39:44 +0000

I think a bigger issue for teens is getting enough sleep and early morning seminary makes that worse. The years I did early morning I remembered nothing whereas I at least retained more from doing the weekly meeting and the independent study seminary. My guess is early morning seminary not only isn’t as effective but negatively affects their broader academics.

By: Dominick

Dominick — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 15:01:19 +0000

Thanks for this thorough and thought provoking post James.

I agree with you when you say ; “However, when I consider my students I think they may have done enough when they get up at 545 every morning to attend Seminary, learn the scripture mastery passages, read the scriptures the formative assessment through questioning in the lessons is far more valuable a tool in measuring progress.:

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the value of doing seminary so early in the morning. I applaud the changes that have happened, but feel lots more is necessary to truly equip the young people. However I also feel for the seminary teachers and wonder if the current system is designed to make their jobs easier when it comes to marking the students?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:31:58 +0000

That’s a really good point about expectations Hans. I’d not thought about that.

By: Hans

Hans — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:23:50 +0000

James,
Thank you for raising this subject. You make an excellent point with a solid analysis. It is good topic to talk about. It might be true that assessments are in particular an American approach or it might not. Even if it is, the question is why this would bother anyone.
I research how LDS doctrine comes across in different nations in Europe. And I find that in some nations assessments are liked, loved, and even very much needed. In other cultures assessments on religion are seen as a form of insult, because religion is not about knowing, but about believing; and religion classes are about developing insights and focus on God. Moreover, they take assessments so serious as to see them as some sort of judgment of worthiness from God’s throne.
In my eyes each culture should decide if and how to assess students. Moreover, the new teaching style of the church, questioning, and students participating in the teaching process is the main focus of our didactics. If students are constantly involved in the learning process, why would one want override the teacher’s responsibility by having them do an official centralized prescribed assessment? Are teachers not capable of judging a student’s progress by themselves? Is that not what “teaching by the Spirit” is all about? Moreover, I am finding that in each culture an assessment needs to focus on a different aspect of the gospel. Just as an assessment to a student in Jesus’ time would be different than the assessment of a student in Joseph Smith’s time, as it is in our time, so an assessment needs to be different for people living in Catholic countries, different for people living in Protestant cultures, different for people living in communistic or atheistic or Buddhist cultures or whatever. Mormons living in each of these areas have a different take on the gospel, with a different focal point, and thus the need for a different approach towards the gospel truths. This is also why in each nation there is a different take on education. I would vote for centralized assessments to become a suggestion, rather than obligatory.

By: jamesdholt

jamesdholt — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:31:03 +0000

Jason B- Yes! Yes! Yes! In fact- let’s just replace the original post with your comment:)

acw- I think I should also say that that is also how the young man I mention was treated- his Bishop sat down with him with the scriptures and all was good. But the issues with the test remain- sorry I’m a broken record! It’s not to measure discipleship, but if it’s to make sure the content is taught then we need to look at our teacher support- seminary teachers the world over have my immense admiration.

By: JasonB

JasonB — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 03:45:46 +0000

James Holt-

Loved this post. I definitely like your ideas of what types of questions should be assessed and (perhaps most importantly) I am a HUGE Dallas Cowboy fan. I also found your comments on “the mission field” to be quite funny and true. As someone who was born in Utah (and spent most of my life there) but currently resides outside of the state I die of embarrassment anytime I hear someone use the phrase. (And anyone who knows me knows I generally think so-called “Utah Mormons” are much better than their stereotypes. But the phrase “the mission field” should be banished from our lexicon forever.)

Now if I may be so bold as to suggest I think the title to your blog post does the material a disservice. In so far as I am reading you correctly (and I have been rightly accused of misreading people online in the past, so please feel free to push back if I am misreading) your main point is you find the one-size fits all approach that the church hands out as not suitable for the needs of students you are teaching. That one size fits all approach just so-happens to come from Utah, which just-so happens to be within the United States of America. So your critique (again, if I am understanding your argument correctly) isn’t really with Americacentrism per se. By that I mean, your problem isn’t that the way the tests are administered are so-unlike anything that might happen in Germany or other countries. And (again if I’m reading you correctly) you are also not saying that the assessments represent how the American education system works. The bigger point is there is a “headquarters” located in America that sends materials that you find constraining and you wish the system was more flexible allowing each location to better adjust to their culture and situation. Am I getting you right? If so I completely agree and think more local flexibility will create better gospel learning and teaching. If it is more of a statement on the type of education America offers, that I have no expertise in at all and no opinion.

I also like how you show that in LDS teachings (for example Elder Perry) expressly state that we need local autonomy. I believe this is the exact type of creative and productive activity that an Elder Perry would or should want to see. I hope moving forward even more autonomy is granted to local teachers and leaders. I know in some ways we are making in roads in that direction. Just in my lifetime many lessons have become less structured. But I certainly hope there is more ahead.

By: Retouched

Retouched — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 23:41:18 +0000

American has nothing to do with it. If you don’t think America has pioneered the way to help students with disabilities, you don’t know American education.

But just as in Europe, many places in America fall short. I’ve never seen a worse assessment than in Germany:

Visit with a child. Have them read to you. Talk to them. Do some writing. Do some math. (All great so far). Tell the parent the child is outstanding and well spoken, knowledgeable and well read beyond their years. You’d love to work with them. Then fail them and and explain you reject them because they didn’t pass the math questions.

That’s not Americanism that sometimes puts too much focus on quantitative measurements. That’s the hegemony of quantitative data driven decision making period.

I’m sure the seminary group will definitely be evolving their assessment over time. But I’m also not sure can assess discipleship without it becoming a merit badge checklist; which while probably better than multiple choice questions is also fraught with problems.

By: acw

acw — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:10:08 +0000

Clark–as an early morning called seminary teacher, I find that things have improved much since my day years ago. The new Doctrinal Mastery program (instead of rote Scriptural Mastery) based on the ASK (acquiring spiritual knowledge) principles engages the students in seeking their own learning and answers. And we make all kinds of assessment testing adaptations for any students who need additional help/time/resources–they can retake it as many times as needed, and are even allowed to take it with parents reading it aloud at home with open scriptures if that helps. Hopefully that’s reassuring for your upcoming students.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:17:06 +0000

I think tests are just there to ensure people did the reading assignment. That’s how it was in far too many BYU religion classes too. From a pedagogical perspective they had almost no other function beyond making it easy to assign grades.

By: jamesdholt

jamesdholt — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:13:54 +0000

John- sorry- should have read the link, rather than assuming what it said. Even less sure of the purpose of tests now though.

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:03:30 +0000

James, from the article I linked: “None of these programs [LDS released-time and early-morning seminary] involve academic credit, nor are they likely to as a result of the recent judicial ruling [which had no LDS involvement], which church spokesman Scott Trotter said ‘will have little to no impact on the church’s seminary program.'”

By: jamesdholt

jamesdholt — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:47:05 +0000

How can anyone be lost with the Cowboys?!

I was probably being too nice in the last comment- I actually am questioning their validity for the stated purpose of S&I- the tests don’t assess progress against the purpose- nor should they. They serve a different purpose and I’m not sure what that is beyond the couple of inappropriate ones I have mentioned in the post. If they meet another requirement for released time then that may be ok in that context.

By: John Riggins

John Riggins — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:39:29 +0000

Loved your comment, but you lost me at ‘Dallas Cowboys’.

By: jamesdholt

jamesdholt — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:22:21 +0000

John- I would certainly hope so but it is still within the paradigm of US education- which is to be expected because of where they work. But gaining high school credit for release time is not something that happens outside the US and so a different model may be needed in other areas. I’m not disputing it’s validity for certain systems just its applicability for all areas and ages.

I also like early morning as I’m unsure where else it would fit in my and my children’s schedule. I have to say I preferred it as a student than as a parent/teacher but that’s probably because I lead a busier life and like sleep!

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:12:26 +0000

From a Deseret News report on a court case involving a non-LDS released-time religious class in Virginia: “In addition to more than 84,000 seminary students in Utah, an additional 112,000-plus students are involved in the LDS Church’s seminary programs around the United States. Most participate in early-morning programs, where students meet at their church or at a centrally located home before school for scriptural training and discussion.” So, most seminary, even in the United States, is early-morning seminary. Even though those designing the seminary assessments are oblivious to the distinct qualities of English education, they probably do perform their work with early-morning seminary taught be non-professionals in mind.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865558570/Released-time-academic-credit-upheld-by-federal-court.html