As I was saying last time, I'm not comfortable with using standardized tests as a method of evaluating a teacher, but I'm also most certainly not comfortable with using them to evaluate student ability or intelligence. Doing well on the ACT, although perhaps a good predictor of how well you take tests and perhaps a good predictor of your academic skill-set, is not a necessarily a good predictor of how well you will do in college. Being smart and unmotivated is not a good recipe for doing well in college, and standardized tests do not assess your academic dispositions. Additionally, especially as a future English teacher, it seems almost criminal to teach students to the test.
In class we worked with the Smarter Balanced Practice Test, which is modeled after a computer-based test, and accessible by grade level. I chose to work with English at the eighth grade level. Not only was the content particularly difficult, it was also visually disconcerting, and the questions did not test how well students could read and comprehend the passage. The passage was dauntingly long. I know many adults (including myself) who would not have the patience to read through the whole passage, especially for a timed test, and especially for a computer-based tests when you feel like your eyes are bleeding the longer you stare at the screen.
Also, the layout of the test was not pleasant. On the left half of the screen you have the passage, and on the right are the questions which are differentiated in that there are multiple choice, short answer, read the passage and answer the question, etc. It is disconcerting to the eye to have passages on both sides of the screen. It is disconcerting to the mind to have 3-5 different types of questions to answer as well, and especially ones that include passages from the text in which you find the answer. What then, is the incentive to read the passage at all? If I am teaching my students how to pass this test, the message seems to be "do not read anything in depth." Read the questions and locate the answers in the text. The right answers are the goal, not necessarily comprehending the passage. Whereas in my classroom, I would like them to learn how to close-read passages, comprehend using critical thinking strategies, and to actively work with the text to construct meaning. The two are contradicting. How can you do both? And are both necessarily productive for the student?
I also discovered that many students go into test-taking already impeded by outside pressures. In class we performed an activity in which we were asked to respond to an essay question, some could use only their index fingers to type, some only one finger, some could not use spell check and then some had no restrictions. If a student goes into a test believing that they will not do well based on past negative experiences, then it is very likely that they will not be confident taking the test. If a student is hungry, has a headache, had a fight with their mom, or simply does not care about the test, they are restricted in how well they will do on that given day. The likelihood that for every student, the atmosphere and mindset for a standardized test will be just right is an impossibility really. All in all, it seems like the testing system as it is does a disservice to teachers, but most importantly it does a huge disservice to students. Students should be at the center.
Jessica,
ReplyDelete"Being smart and unmotivated is not a good recipe for doing well in college, and standardized tests do not assess your academic dispositions. Additionally, especially as a future English teacher, it seems almost criminal to teach students to the test."
I could not agree more. Perhaps you should consider running for office!
I appreciate your thoughtfulness here, and I think you're way ahead of the curve in terms of really knowing what you want your students to be able to do. The irony is that those things--especially if we're talking about growth-- can only really be measured by a student's individual teacher who sees the student on a daily basis.
I'm curious to know how you plan to approach this high stakes test given your own teaching philosophy. By no means do I expect a definitive answer but maybe you could shed a little bit of light on it?
Really compelling stuff.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post! I too am not extremely comfortable with the reasons you described in your blog post - both teacher and student evaluation. The Smarter Balanced Assessment is one in particular I'm not very fond of calling an "advancement". From my experience at Scarlett, students come into school with a wide range of technological experience - some are pretty good at working the computer, while some need a lot of help. Moving all students to a computer-based exam, especially as early as middle school (or earlier) does not seem very "balanced" to me. I also do not believe a standardized exam should hold as much weight as it does, both as a tool to evaluate (and potentially get rid of) teachers and as a tool for university admissions offices to evaluate incoming students. In my short time at Scarlett, I have seen some students shut down when given a simple "standardized" assignment the rest of class is working on at the same time, while excel in a 1:1 environment working through a text or problem. I have a hard time saying that a student who I know "gets it", yet performs poorly on a standardized test, should have less opportunities (and, quite frankly, this is all too true - not only in undergrad admissions, but graduate exams such as the GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc.). I wholeheartedly agree that students should be at the center. Hear, hear.
Wonderful post. I have to second what has already been said here, and say that I too am uncomfortable with the idea of a single test, taken at a single time having that much sway over somebody's destiny. If that wasn't bad enough, as you so rightly pointed out the user experience and interface is so horribly overwrought that it probably makes every graphic designer cry tears of blood. I understand the reasoning behind standardized testing, insofar as it provides some sort of common foundation upon which to rank student growth and progress, allowing for cross-state and cross-national comparison. That being said, I have to believe that there is a better solution to that problem. If we view ourselves as educational practitioners, in much the same way as a psychiatrist is a practitioner, there must be some way in which to standardize the output of assessments without having to resort to exams which do little more than test the ability of the ability of the testee to work the system.
ReplyDelete