This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 27 November 2014, At: 14:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Jewish EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujje20

TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORYJulius B. Maller aa Director Educational Research, Union of American HebrewCongregationsPublished online: 11 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Julius B. Maller (1930) TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORY, Journal of JewishEducation, 2:2, 96-103, DOI: 10.1080/0021642300020205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0021642300020205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORY

BY JULIUS B. MALLERDirector Educational Research, Union of American Hebrew Congregations

THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINATIONS

The difference between the old andthe new school is revealed in its attitudetoward tests. In the old school the ex-amination was used for the purpose ofintimidation. It was a threatening rodin the teacher's hand. In the newschool the examination is used as ameasuring rod with the purpose of reg-istering achievement and diagnosing in-dividual difficulties.

An educational theory based upon thebelief that "anything is worth teachingas long as the children don't like it"will set up examinations that will be asdifficult as they will be unpleasant". Ifthe attitude of the teacher toward thechild is one of an enemy to be conqueredat any cost; if the educative process is abattle, a desperate attempt "to force ab-stract ideas into concrete heads," thenthe examination becomes a weapon. Theharder the weapon, the surer the victory.

The aims of the modern educator areto help the child in his adjustment, toimpart useful information, desirableideas and ideals, to develop helpful skills,to enrich the child's inner life leadingon to a fuller and happier self-realiza-tion. Tests and examinations become,then, instruments for measuring capacityand achievement. They purport tomeasure the efficiency of the teacher aswell as the ability of the pupil.

THE NEED OF MEASURING ACHIEVE-MENT IN JEWISH SCHOOLS

The success of a school is very oftenmeasured by the increase in registration,greater retention, better attendance, in-creased number of sessions, number ofstudents in post-graduate groups, im-proved facilities, co-operation of parents,etc. All of the preceding factors may

undoubtedly condition the success of aschool; they may be symptoms of prog-ress, but they are only indirect ways ofanswering the question whether theschool accomplishes what it aims to ac-complish. The only direct measure ofa school's success is the extent of educa-tional achievement of its students, thedegree of knowledge it succeeds in im-parting, the desirable habits and skill itdevelops, the attitudes it crystallizes, theconduct and behavior it initiates—inshort, the degree of change it bringsabout in its pupils. Does the Jewishschool produce, with any degree of suc-cess, what it aims to produce?

This cardinal question can be an-swered only through the application oftests, instruments of measuring pupils'achievement and progress.

A STUDY OF TESTS USED IN THE SUN-DAY SCHOOL1

In order to study the nature of thetests commonly used in the Sundayschools, we asked a number of schoolsfor copies of the final examinationsgiven at the end of last year.

To enable us to study the children'sanswers, we asked also for copies ofchildren's test papers. We thus obtaineda large number of examinations and agreat many papers of pupils who tookthose tests.

Only the better schools responded, andthere is reason to believe that only thosetests which the principals considered ofsuperior value were sent to us. Ourstudy then was limited to the better, if

1. The writer wishes to acknowledge theco-operation of Rabbi Jacob B. Pollak, whosehelp in getting the test material from theschools and in having made teachers scorethose tests made this investigation possible.

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORY 97

not the best, of the tests used in theSunday schools.

Our survey reveals that the prevail-ing form of examination in the Sundayschool is the one generally known as the"essay test." Topics are suggested andproblems presented which the childrenare to discuss "briefly" or "fully." Char-acteristic of this form of examinationare such phrases as: "What were the ef-fects of ," "Trace the causesof ," "Discuss the influence of

," "Tell what you know about— —," "Why did ,""Compare ," "Contrast —,"etc.

The following list presents a few es-say test questions, selected from final ex-aminations given in various Sundayschools.

SAMPLES OF TEST QUESTIONS OF THE

ESSAY TYPE

1. Compare the characters of Jacoband Esau. Whose character do youadmire, which one do you thinkwould succeed best in the world to-day, and give reasons for youranswer.

2. Would the Jews have been capableof conducting their affairs in theLand of Canaan if they hadreached there within a short timeafter leaving Egypt? Explain.

3. Although the Northern Kingdompossessed fine agricultural oppor-tunities and a greater amount ofland than the Southern Kingdom,the North disappeared. Why didthis happen?a) How did the period after the

Division of the Kingdom offerthe prophets an opportunity toexpress their ideals?

4. Discuss the ideals' of the prophets.What conditions did Isaiah de-plore ?Why was the Temple destroyed?

5. What were the important epochs inJewish history up to the BabylonianCaptivity ?

State some advantages of the exile.6. Describe the return to Palestine

under the leadership of Ezra andNehemiah.a) What conditions did these lead-

ers try to remedy, and tell howthey did it.

7. Show the difference between theGreek culture (Hellenism) and theHebrew culture (Hebraism). Whatattitude did Antigones of Sochotake toward Greek culture?

8. What incident led to the interven-tion (or interference) of Antiochusin Jewish affairs?

9. Discuss the three political partiesthat grew up among the Jews dur-ing the reign of John Hyrcanus.

10. Write a paragraph on Jesus, givingall important facts.

11. If the Jews loved their land ofPalestine, why did only a certainnumber of them leave Babylon andreturn to Palestine?

12. If Ruth, a Moabite maiden, madesuch a good wife and Jewess, whyshould men like Ezra and Nehe-miah wish to send away foreignwives ?

13. Do you think that the Jews shouldrather have saved their lives thantry to save their Temple from theRomans? (Give full reasons.)

14. Describe the life of the Jews inBabylonia and in Palestine fromthe Destruction of the Temple un-til the compiling of the Gemora.

15. Mention topics the Talmud speaksabout.

16. What caused the split between theKaraites and the other Jews?

17. Give the steps by which Rome. gradually gained control over the

Jews. • : .18. Give all points of difference be-

tween the Pharisees and the Sad-duccees.

19. How was Christianity founded?20. Of what main parts is the Talmud

composed? Describe the develop-ment of these parts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

98 JEWISH EDUCATION

21. What part did Rabbi Jochanan benZakkai play in the preservation ofthe Jewish people to this day?

22. Contrast Hellenism and Judaismin respect to (a) religion, (b) gov-ernment, and (c) effect on people.

From the logical point of view thesetests appear to be adequate. They pre-sent problems which test the child's un-derstanding of important events in Jew-ish history, the relationship betweencause and effect, and the ability to useknowledge of facts in the discussion ofhistorical problems. They afford an op-portunity for organization of informa-tion and for constructive expression.

From the psychological point of view,however, these tests have two majorshortcomings: (a) complexity of prob-lems and {b) difficulties involved inscoring.

The foregoing examples were takenfrom tests given in Grades IV throughVIII, to children of ages ten to fifteen.It is evident that the problems thesetests present and the responses they re-quire are definitely above the mentallevel of children of elementary grades.They would prove too difficult even foradult students.

It is common knowledge that in orderto solve a problem, one must deal withone unknown at a time. A measuringinstrument will yield useful results if,in the process of measurement, the ob-ject to be measured is defined and iso-lated. This is known as the "law ofthe single variable." Now do the fore-going tests measure the knowledge ofJewish history, and nothing but thatknowledge? An inspection of the pre-ceding examples will reveal that successin answering them depends on at leastthree other capacities: (1) the ability toread and to comprehend difficult Eng-lish sentences and paragraphs; (2) theintelligence to solve difficult problems ina relatively short while and to arrangethe solution in a logical order; and (3)the ability to express the solution in well-written form.

It may be desirable, useful, and evenfeasible to measure each of the fore-going abilities. That, however, shouldbe done in separate tests devised for thatpurpose, but it is highly undesirable toconfuse those abilities with knowledgeof Jewish history. The vagueness andcomplexity of those questions wouldhave been eliminated if the teachers, inmaking up tests, would ask themselves:What exactly do I want to test? WillI be able to tell from the child's answerwhether he knows it or not?

The second difficulty with the essaytests is of even more serious nature.What standards should the teacher usein scoring the answers to such problems ?How would different teachers score onechild's paper? To what extent does ascore on an essay test depend upon thesubjective judgment and temperament ofindividual teachers? To what extent isthat judgment affected by a teacher'ssympathy with or antipathy toward acertain child?

The purpose of the present researchwas to throw light on this problem. Twocomplete tests actually used in a Sundayschool were selected—one given inGrade V, the other in Grade VII. Fromthe children's answers to each of thosetests we took at random two papers.2

The following are verbatim reproduc-tions of Text V, followed by the papersof child H and child K:

EXAMINATION IN JEWISH HISTORY,GRADE V

1. Explain how the Israelites came tolive in Egypt.

2. What is a symbol? Mention threesymbols used at the Passover Seder.

3. Mention one thing learned this yearthat has helped to make you a bet-ter boy or girl.

4. Tell the effect the location ofCanaan had on its civilization.

5. In looking over the history we have

2. Only the results of the Grade V testare printed in this issue. The results of theGrade VII test are similar in character.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORY 99

studied, what is the outstandingthing the leaders tried to do, andto what degree did Joshua, Samuel,Abimelech, and Gideon succeed?

6. For what qualities was Solomon es-pecially known, and for what do weremember him?

7. Explain how Joshua differed fromMoses in his leadership of Israel.

8. Compare the Israelites when theyleft Egypt to the Israelites whowere ready to enter Canaan.

9. Contrast Elijah and Elisha, givingthe chief works and teachings ofeach.

10. Compare the character of Amosand Hosea. What was the divinemessage of each?

ANSWERS TO EXAMINATION IN JEWISHHISTORY, GRADE V

Child H1. When Joseph was sold to slavery,

he told Pharohs dreams, he made himGovenor of Egypt. And he tookcare of the seven years of good andseven years of famine. His broth-ers were starving in Canaan. Theycame to him. The second timethey came he told them he was theirbrother and he said to bring theirfather there. And they lived inEgypt till Moses came.

2. A symbol is something that meansone thing and stands for another.Motzo's Lamb bone and bitterHerbs.

3. Obedience has made me a bettergirl.

4. It was in the center of the old worldand it was used as a warpath inwartime and in piese used as a road.

5. Joshua tried to make a union. Sam-uel did also. Abimlech tried to sep-erate it and Gideon tried to bring ittogether also.

6. He was wise and also built atemple.

7. Joshua differed from Moses becauseMoses was peace-loving and Joshuawas war-loving.

8. The Israelites who left Egpt for-got about God because they hadseen Idol worshipping. The Israel-ites who were entering Canaan didnot have hardship and were afraidto fight.

9. Elijah was a stern man teachingthat God is Justice. Elishah was akind man, teaching God is love.

10. Amos was stern. Hosea was not.Amos said that the Lord is Justiceand that he is the Lord of all na-tions not only of Israel. Hoseataught that God is love.3 Theyboth wrote their teachings.

Child K

1. The lord brought thee in the landto Egypt.

2. A sign.3. My mother made me good.4. Very good for they could learn

things from each eather.5. Joshua tried to make it one nation.

Gideon started it but never ended.6. For he bult a beautiful temple.7. Moses was religus Joshua was a

figter.8. When they came to Canaan they

were batter.9. Elisha was Elijah's pupil. Elijah

was very much honored among theJews. Elisha who was his pupilwas also respected.

10. Hosea was kind. Amos was stern.Hosea preached God is love. Amospreached God is justice.

The test of Grade V is a typical ex-ample of the conventional type of testused in the Sunday school. Such wordsas "explain," "tell," "compare," and"contrast" are used abundantly. Theanswers of child H and child K aretypical papers.

The children's answers are quotedverbatim, including misspellings and

3. Note the repetition of the phrases "Godis love, God is justice" in answers 9 and 10;the same phrases appear in the answers ofchild K. It indicates the effect of havingmemorized expressions without understand-ing their significance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

100 JEWISH EDUCATION

many other errors. They are part ofthe child's answer, and the teacher whois to score those papers has to reckonwith them.

The answers indicate that the ques-tions were too difficult and beyond theabilities of the children tested.

The real difficulties, however, thatthese questions and answers present arethose involved in scoring. How woulddifferent teachers score such papers?Mimeographed copies of the foregoingtests and the children's answers wereprepared. These were sent out to alarge number of Sunday-school teachersfor scoring. The following letter ofinstruction indicated how the tests wereto be scored:"DEAR TEACHER:

We are having a number of teachersscore examination papers which weregiven in certain schools. We would likeyour help and co-operation in scoringthese papers. Will you please complywith the directions carefully? Pleaseread the answer to each question andscore it on a scale from Excellent toVery Poor.

The answer should be scored:Excellent if it is very good... (9 or 10)Good if it is above average. . . (7 or 8)Fair if it is just average (5 or 6)Poor if it is below standard.... (3 or 4)Very poor if it deserves failure. (1 or 2)Worthless if it is zero value (0)

After you have scored each of theanswers, assign a total score for thewhole test. The total score for the pa-pers should be also arrived at on a basisof the same scale, viz.: Excellent for avery good paper, etc."

The teachers were to score each ofthe test questions and return the results.As seen from the scoring directions, eachof the ten answers was to be scored ona scale from zero to 10, or from Worth-less to Excellent.

Results. Tables I and II (p. 102)

present the results. The columnmarked "Score" gives each of the pos-sible scores. The columns 1-10 presentthe results for the ten test items. Col-umn 1 presents the results for the an-swer to the first item. It shows thepercentage of teachers assigning to it ascore of Excellent, Good, Average, andso on. Columns 2-10 present similarlythe percentage of teachers assigning eachof the possible scores to the respectiveitems.

It can be readily seen from the fol-lowing tables that the teachers variedgreatly in their estimates of the meritsof the papers to be scored. In somecases a child's answer was scored Ex-cellent by one teacher, while anotherteacher scored the same answer as Poor.It is evident that an instrument whichwill record the worth of a given objectas excellent in the hands of one personand as poor in the hands of another isnot only valueless but even misleading.Surely the foregoing two teachers couldnot have differed more about the childif they had given no test, or even if theyhad never seen the child and simplyguessed at what score he should be given.

How should the principal be guidedby scores of Excellent and Failure re-ceived from different teachers and basedon such testing devices?

Wherein lies the fault? Is this vari-ability of estimate and diversity of judg-ment due to the lack of training on thepart of the teachers and their inabilityto determine the true value of a child'sanswer, or is it due to inherent short-comings of the essay-type test itself?

Do people with training in Jewishand general education find it easier toscore answers to such general questionsas those quoted above? Do they showless disagreement in such scoring?Copies of the above-mentioned test ofGrade V and the answers of child Hand child K were presented to ten Jew-ish educators. They were asked to score

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORY 101

each of the answers on a scale from0-10.4

Tables III and IV present the scoreassigned by each of the educators toeach answer of the children K and H :

The line marked "Individual Educa-tors" gives the respective symbol of eachof the people who did the scoring (thisdoes not follow the above order ofnames). Lines 1-10 refer to each of therespective answers.

The variation is shown in the extremeright-hand column marked "Range ofScores." It shows that the range of scoresassigned to the answer of child K to thefirst question was from 0-10, the maxi-mum possible variation, etc. The bot-tom line of these tables marked "Scor-ing Range" gives the range of scores foreach educator. This indicated the ex-tent to which the educators discrim-inated between the answers of a givenchild. It shows that some of them as-signed scores that ranged only from Av-erage to Excellent, while others variedtheir scores from Failure to Excellent.The former were thus more lenient thanthe latter.

It will be noted from the followingtables that the educators showed nogreater agreement among themselves inassigning scores to the children's re-sponses. In some cases they even dis-played greater variation than the teach-ers. The scores assigned to the sameitem ranged sometimes from Worthlessto Excellent.

It is reasonable to conclude that thedifficulty in scoring this type of test isinherent in the test itself. A child'sscore based on such a test will be of nogreater value than a mere guess as tohis real merit in Jewish history.

4. The writer acknowledges the co-opera-tion of the following people in this phase ofthe investigation: Dr. Bamberger, Dr.Comins, Rabbi Falk, Dr. Gamoran, RabbiJaffee, Mr. Monzaki, Rabbi Pollak, RabbiSchwartz, Rabbi Walk, Mr. Arzt, and Mr.Zubin.

SUMMARY

1. The essay-type test is at presentthe prevailing form of examination in theSunday school.

2. Those tests consist of questions toodifficult in nature to be answered intel-ligently by the pupils to whom they aregiven.

3. Teachers who were asked to scorea given child's paper differed enor-mously in the scores they assigned.

4. A group of Jewish educators disfplayed similar disagreement in scoringthe same papers.

5. It appears that scores obtainedfrom such general tests are of littlevalue to the principal and teacher.

In conclusion we may say that thetype of test in Jewish history used atpresent in the Sunday school has thefollowing shortcomings:

1. The tests do not yield scores whichmeasure individual differences. Suchscores are the opinions of teachers. Theyare very much influenced by prejudicesfor or against a child. A principal re-ceiving such scores from different teach-ers could hardly use them for the pur-pose of deciding on matters of promo-tions, honors, etc.

2. Such scores are unfair to the child,who often wonders why he received alow mark while another child receiveda higher mark for work of apparentlyno higher quality. It introduces mis-trust and notions that certain teachersare "easy" while others are "hard."

3. The child is often forced by suchtests to bluff. Unable to tackle theproblems presented, he tries to repeatgeneralizations which he happens to re-call, hoping that the teacher will givehim the benefit of the doubt. The op-portunities for such practice may leadto habits of intellectual dishonesty.

4. The tests are unfair to the teach-ers, as they require a great deal of timeif the scoring is to be done at all con-scientiously. It is a known fact that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

102 JEWISH EDUCATION

teachers sometimes read only a few ofthe papers, becoming tired, and assigngrades based on a superficial perusal ofthe rest.

5. The administration of such testsusually takes a whole period. In viewof the limited time at the disposal ofthe Sunday-school teacher, such tests canbe given only very rarely.

6. Such tests have no diagnostic value.It is practically impossible to trace achild's real shortcomings from an an-swer to a complicated problem. It is

impossible to discover from such resultswhat facts or interpretations weremissed by the child. No remedial treat-ment can thus be attempted.

7. The general nature of the essaytests implies that they aim at testingwhat the child ought to learn ratherthan what he actually has learned. Fromthat point of view these tests probablysucceed in impressing a child with hisignorance, with the great gap betweenwhat he knows and what his teachersexpect him to know. The desirability

TABLE I

VARIATION OF SCORES ASSIGNED TO ANSWERS OF CHILD H BY TEACHERS

GRADE v

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

TESTS IN JEWISH HISTORY 103

of such impressions is doubtful. In thelight of modern theories of mental hy-giene the effects are probably harmful.(If the children only knew how fewof their teachers could answer thosequestions satisfactorily they would beconsoled.)

There is need for a series of objectivestandardized tests in the subjects taughtin the Sunday schools. Such tests wouldenable the measurement of pupils'achievement and progress, as well as theefficiency of different teachers. They

would enable us to evaluate the relativemerits of different methods of instruc-tion and supervision. A series of suchstandard achievement tests in Jewishhistory has recently been completed, andthe results of those tests will be dis-cussed in a subsequent issue of JewishEducation.5

5. EDITORIAL NOTE: Reference is made tothe Jewish History Achievement Tests, byJulius B. Mailer and Jacob B. Pollack, pub-lished by the Union of American HebrewCongregations, 1929.

TABLE III

VARIATION OF SCORES ASSIGNED TO CHILD H BY EDUCATORS

TESTITEM

123456789

10

Scoringrange..

INDIVIDUAL EDUCATORS

A

79

1078

10956

10

5-10

B

555647466

10

4-10

C

9108969875

10

5-10

D

89856

10522

10

2-10

E

81010889973

10

3-10

F

97

1010896368

3-10

G

1010101010101055

10

5-10

H

86S66

107469

4-9

I

88

108565259

2-10

J

8678677679

6-9

RANGEOF SCORES

5-105-105-105-104-106-104-102-72-78-10

TABLE IV

VARIATION OF SCORES ASSIGKED TO CHILD K BY EDUCATORS

TESTITEM

12 . . . . . . .345678.. ..9

10

Scoringrange. .

INDIVIDUAL EDUCATORS

A

870765706

9.5

0-9.5

B

0302358069

0-9

C

730657785

10

0-10

D

03003

. 5322

10

0-10

E

1053242515

10

1-10

F

05

. 02456248

0-8

G

000035

1050

10

0-10

H

5506677559

0-9

I

10300455517

0-10

J

4406568769

0-9

RANGEOF SCORES

0-100-70-30-73-62-73-100-80-67-10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

29 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014