To Test or Not to Test
Russ
consider:
To test or not to test? This is the question that keeps coming to me.
It is the ultimate question derived from a series of questions
regarding assessments, particularly traditional testing. What other
questions do I ask myself? Why do we test? What is the fundamental
purpose of traditional testing? What skills does traditional testing
assess? Does it serve students or teachers? Is it the best way for
students to review, organize and synthesize unit material? Is it a
good way for students to review, organize and synthesize unit material?
Other questions lend themselves for consideration n this matter, but
these considerations can be addressed in the process of examining these
core questions.
Why do we test? This is the question that has my head spinning, not
because I do not know the answer, but, because I am not sure the answer
is satisfactory. As far as I can tell, tests are designed to be a
measurement of what each student has learned for a given unit. It
offers an opportunity to put a quantitative score, thus seeming
scientific, to that measurement. I use quantitative to include raw
scores, percentages, and letter grades, even if the letter grade is
derived from a subjective review. With the quantitative measurement
established, students can be ranked from highest to lowest achiever.
This seems to satisfy the bureaucratic necessities of a school, a board
of education and/or school board, whether public or private. Results
can then be compared between student peers, between year-to-year within
the same school, school-to-school with the same district or category,
school-to-school from region to region. This provides various
bureaucrats to make measurements based upon the same comparative
criteria as a means to answer the question-"How are we doing?"
That answer can be stated another way as well-"How good are we?"
It also provides a tool for universities to select those deemed worthy
for admission or unworthy to justify rejection. Nowhere among these
questions does there seem to be concern about students as individuals
or the true quality of what has or has not been learned. Why should
education be competitive? Education is for all and benefits all, both
in the sense of all individuals and in terms of the community.
What is the fundamental purpose of testing? By fundamental purpose, I
refer to the stated means of testing in relation to student learning.
Testing, in this sense, is designed to make students take stock of all
pertinent material related to a given unit. It is a review of
accumulated information and to do so with a critical eye. The goal is
for students to put all of the pieces together in a cohesive and
coherent manner in preparation for a question or series of questions,
which they do not know of in advance, designed to examine or assess the
breadth and depth of understanding. However, a test can also be a
trial. Is the purpose then to determine whether a student is worthy of
recognition/advancement, guilty or innocent of ignorance? If the
purpose of a test is to sum up or wrap up a panoply of knowledge and
understanding, it should not be necessary to explore the extent of a
student's learning under such a system. What is really being tested?
Is it a student point-of-view or a teacher point-of-view? Are student
telling us what they know or what we want to know? If it is this, then
we must deal with the reality of students trying to anticipate what
they think we want to hear and not really seeking or preparing for true
knowledge and understanding.
Is there better ways for students to organize and interpret what they
have learned? As a teacher of History and Humanities, writing is a
crucial skill necessary for every student to possess and work towards
improving. Can unit essays serve the same learning/review functions of
testing, but without the anxiety of the unknown component of
traditional testing? Essays provide further opportunities for students
to take more responsibility and agency for their own education. I see
the role of teacher as one of a guide, who gives structure, direction
and new perspectives to students allowing them to discover what skills
and talents they possess and then to help them hone these skills and
talents. With such a structure, students must still review, organize,
synthesize and disseminate information and understanding with a
critical eye and in a clear and concise manner. I can then be an
advisor and counselor steering students to the key aspects of unit that
is necessary for them to know at this point in their lives and
educational growth. This makes for a more efficient use of energy and
focus on the important and pertinent.
Other methods are available as well. Oral presentations make use of
similar skills of review, evaluation and organization while also
employing oral communication development. Work sheets can focus
students on attention to detail. Creative assignments, such as
allowing students to write historical fiction or cartoons or music or
collages, as long as they are grounded in the material of the unit
still require students to review, organize and synthesize material. If
it is appropriate, why not give students a degree of responsibility for
teaching themselves and one another by putting them at the front of the
classroom? As long as a teacher is in the classroom to provide
structure and focus and to oversee content, letting students teach one
another can be a valuable tool.
There are some valuable aspects of traditional teaching: memorization,
self-preparation, responding to an unknown. Perhaps the most
legitimate argument for traditional testing is that students will get
tests in university or AP/IB standardized tests. Giving them tests in
the classrooms helps them when other criteria or determinants put them
into as testing situation. If learning is to be the focus of the
classroom and unit material, testing seems like only one of many
methods for students to process significant amounts of material. It
may not be the best method, certainly if students come to the test with
little or no idea of what will be asked of them. If testing is to be
used, why not provide students with prospective questions? This
focuses attention on the more crucial material, but still forces
students to review, organize, synthesize and disseminate information,
but with less tension.
To test or not to test? I am de-emphasizing traditional testing in the
classroom. I want to turn more and more responsibility to students. I
will give parameters and guidance for various assessment methodologies.
Ultimately, my students must still use the requisite skills to
demonstrate their understanding of material. I prefer to let students
do it in a manner that is more comfortable for them as a means to
maximize the effectiveness of student learning and interests. I still
give tests, because students must be exposed to working in situations
where they are not always comfortable. However, I can do so with less
stress on the format or content of the test and more emphasis on the
material that must be prepared for an assessment, be it a test of essay
or presentation.
Tabitha Dell'Angelo
This is something that we struggle with at every level of teaching and
learning. As I was reading your ideas, I began to think that the answer
to "why we test" is connected to "why we teach". It is true that we test
knowledge of what we as teachers feel is important. And, in fact,
students might have gotten a great deal from the lessons but still not
be able to perform in a satisfactory way on our tests. So the burden is
back on the teacher -- how do we decide what is important to teach? Is
it prescribed from above? In which case, we don't have much choice. Or,
have we made decisions about what is important for students to know? In
which case, poor performace on the part of the student may be a
reflection of disinterest in what we have chosen to teach. -- Just a
thought.
As for your critique of the actual tests, I completely agree. An essay
is not only a fine assessment of knowledge in general but also a much
more appropriate way to determine whether students understand the
material and can apply it in a meaningful way. It also allows the
freedom for students to focus on areas within the text that interest
them the most and really make meaning from that. On the other hand,
grading multiple choice exams is so much easier. Grading essays is
messy, unstandardized, time consuming... It reminds me of about 10 years
ago when everyone was talking about "portfolio assessments". This is
where students would build a portfolio of work over the course of a
marking period or semester that would be reviewed and evaluated by both
the teacher and the student themselves. Everyone agreed this was a much
more meaningful way to assess student progress. Then, no one did it.
I am going to keep thinking about what you've written. But, I wanted to
throw some thoughts back while I had a few minutes.
Best,
Tabitha
Mary Montgomery
That is interesting what you say about portfolios. I have only been affiliated with 3 international schools, but each of them has used portfolios for student assessments. Portofolios and student-led conferences seem to be the standard. Teachers do say they are tremendously time-consuming, but they are required.
Mary
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
Sandy Infield
Thank you all for bringing up this thorny issue of testing. I am bound to add that we do use student portfolios in the school where I am working; I gather that it is now an expected teacher/student practice in most IB schools. Tabitha mentioned that ten years ago student portfolios were the ‘in thing’, but yet no one did it, I think I can help explain why.
The putting together of a students portfolio is a time consuming process, often we as teachers have to organize copying work and getting it printed you can imagine the budget quarrels that arise from that, should the design technology or science department pay for such work from their own budget, when will they get the time to do it in over packed school schedule.
Likewise student time is now a very rare resource, with subject teachers all vying for more time, when do the students do the gathering, class time is so scares, especially higher up the school the curriculum demands are huge, and the day only so long.
I am inclined to see the gathering of a portfolio as an extra demand on both teachers and students, but agree with the concept that it is a far better way of assessing student learning, should we then prioritize it? Perhaps if the curriculum aloud for more portfolio time and less traditional testing we would all gain, would it be so unreasonable for universities/employers to regard a student’s portfolio as a very good way to judge a students learning and abilities to learn at a higher level.
As I teach IB MYP exploratory, I require students to be creative, that may seem small fry in relation to being organized or presenting an idea clearly, but I am inclined to think it is not, creativity is a vital ‘skill’ how does a student make mental jumps between one subject and another in order to use information in a new way, how does a student link ideas, explore opportunities that are often wild or not yet known. I have the students work in a developmental workbook, this is a place where they are expected to create, to link ideas and try them out. How do I test this? What would gain a good Grade? I use the rubrics, a) knowledge and understanding, b) application, c) reflection and evaluation ,d) artistic awareness and personal engagement, I have listed them because I have found them to be fair measuring tools for this elusive thing creativity, but I wonder would they not be just as good at testing/assessing a science or math’s class?
Traditional testing has many faults, particularly if applied to subjects that do not have an obvious empirical content. Students of the twenty first century have much more subject content than students of the twentieth century, for example a student now in grade ten is expected to know the workings of DNA twenty years ago DNA was taught in grade twelve when the student was two years older. Perhaps it is not possible to memorize all core information available in the twenty first century, perhaps the ability to be creative, to find information and link it in new and interesting ways is more important than being able to memorize it, as Mary said this is an existential issue, or is it?. If it is not, should we be looking for tests and assessments that actually do value creativity rather than limiting student time to explore it.
Sandy in Hanoi
Jennifer Kadiri
How is everything going? Say hello to Kate for me.
I'm so glad that you brought up this subject. It will be interesting to
hear everyone's thoughts. I know in Mallorca we all talked about testing
and the general consensus was that traditional testing did not serve the
purpose for which it was designed.
I know in my fourth grade classroom I try to stay away from testing for
testing's sake. For most assessments I try to make them more authentic,
either using projects or writing or oral presentations to assess student
learning. However there are some instances when I am forced to test either
by the system or by the nature of the knowledge that is needing to be
assessed.
For example, my students are require to memorize their multiplication
facts, there is no other way to test this learning without giving them a
timed test. I have made it as fun as possibe (Monster Multiplication) but
it is still uninteresting, rote learning.
My school also takes a couple of different standardized tests, the ERB/CTP
4 test and the Gates MacGinite Reading test. The first of these tests is a
traditional American standardized test. It is geared towards American
students in the American system; and while we are an American school,
culturally and linguistically we are not at the same level as American
students and to use these tests to assess our students does not give a valid
picture of their knowledge or capabilities. These tests capture not the
student's overall performance capability but their capability for one day,
when they may not understand the instructions due to language/vocabulary
problems, when they may not feel well, when they may just be distracted or
boared because they've been doing the same thing, filling in bubbles, all
week long.
Authentic assessments give such a clearer picture of student's
capabilities. These are easier to do in some subjects than others. As I
mentioned above, I sometimes struggle coming up with different testing
strategies in certain areas of math. In reading, writing, and science,
however, I find that authentic assessment is not only better for the student
but so much more interesting and fun to plan. I'm working on using these
assessments exclusively whenever possible.
We do however have to prepare our students for what is to come. In our
high school the rules still call for midterm and final exams. These are
given in the traditional sense and I feel that it would be unfair to the
student to send them on without any experience with the stress of tests.
Hopefully as more and more teachers move away from testing and towards
authentic assessment the school systems will follow.
So, just a few of my thoughts, I look forward to reading what the rest of
you think about this subject.
Jennifer
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/