Back in 1964, Austwick, in his book on `Teaching Machines
and Programming’, maintained that programming led to a much more detailed study
of subject matter. This then meant that there needed to be a precise
consideration of the type of student for which the programme was intended. Austwick
argued that children in primary schools, grammar and technical institutions
would all need different programmes. “The work would need to be appropriate for
the development of mental structures and abilities of children for whom the
programme is prepared.”
The Eleven Plus examination tries to select children who are
all academically around the same level – in spite of different backgrounds and
foundations. The actual eleven plus test, however, is a pen and paper exercise – so however much the
child has been prepared with on-line exercises and tests – in the actual examination
most candidates will have to pick up their pencils and start completing
multiple choice tests. (There are some variations to multiple choice tests in
some schools.)
After a child has reached a level of competence then much eleven
plus work can become repetitive and rather mechanical. Some parents may strive
to make work on papers and eleven plus exercises rather more palatable. In an
ideal world an eleven plus child would sometimes want to study on his or her
own. This would enable parents to feel that they were not drillmasters but were
sharing in the eleven plus experience.
The wise old man called Skinner in an extract called `Teaching
Machines’ (1961) wrote:
“In assigning mechanizable functions to machines, the
teacher will emerge in his proper role as an indispensable human being”.
Some parents would be grateful for a paraphrase of Skinner’s
statement:
“In encouraging my child to take more responsibility for
eleven plus work I will emerge in my proper role as a parent and an indispensable
human being”.
