Apparently the new fad is making standardized tests computer-based instead of on paper. I can see how computer-based testing would be faster and easier to score, and allow for a wider flexibility in testing dates, but it would also mean ensuring there are enough computers for all Xth graders across the nation on testing day. Furthermore, the test interface may not be the most user-friendly and would require schools to take an extra day to teach students how to use the program. While devoting an entire day to making sure students are clicking the right buttons and using the correct text box sounds excessive, some test interfaces are extremely cluttered. We took an assessment called Smarter Balanced in class, a standardized test in competition with other achievement exams in Michigan like the ACT/ASPIRE and MEAP. Like the latter two exams, Smarter Balanced tests students on math and reading skills.
I chose to work on the math section during our practice run in class. While the math was doable, I found myself scrambling to find scratch paper, which was not provided. Many other students said they were confused by the vast array of icons on the screen, and that it took a while before they could find the one marked "next question". Students taking the reading section of the test found it irritating that they couldn't underline/hilight/write notes on the given passage, making information hunting for answering questions difficult, and everyone noticed that they couldn't skip questions.
Don't get me wrong, I think if we have to take standardized tests, then computer-based is the way to go. However, several items need to be taken into consideration:
1. Give students a brief intro to how to use the testing interface. At the very least, tell them where the buttons for "next" and "previous" are located.
2. Allow hilighting and underlining in the reading comprehension portion.
3. Provide scratch paper for the math section.
4. Change the program so that students can skip ahead in a given section, but cannot skip sections.
5. Make the test computer-adaptive. It minimizes cheating since there's no guarantee that two students will have the exact same question.
I see why the general public values standardized tests; it serves as a benchmark for measuring student achievement and one can use the data to measure achievement across counties, states, and regions. However, using standardized tests as the main or only way to measure student achievement and teacher efficacy is a lousy idea. Test scores will be making up 40% of teacher evaluations in Michigan starting this year. Most of the students I've worked with are diligent and conscientious, but may be bad test takers. Standardized tests ignore this and give everyone the same amount of time. Furthermore, we place so much value on exam scores that we forget the nuances in the classroom -- student interest in the subject, student improvement in the class throughout the year, student-teacher interactions, and students' nonacademic life, among others, that could influence test scores.
Unfortunately we still have to follow the laws written by a bunch of empty suits with absolutely no teaching experience.
3 comments:
Melissa, I really appreciated this post, in particular the constructive suggestions you gave to the standardized test. While, I am not confident that digital is the direction to go, I think it is inevitable, with standardized testing being a lucrative business, the efficiency of digital is without question. I was similarly concerned with the role of standardized testing, and less so the mode in which it was implemented, you brought up great points about, "smartness" needing to be measured in different ways. The most knowledgeable student who is a bad test taker, cannot accurately be measured by a standardized test, so with your suggestion of orienting students to this interface is extremely valuable.
Melissa, you certainly bring up some thought-provoking items in this post. As Meghan said, I like that you pointed out some specific issues that need to be taken into consideration before standardized testing goes full-blown computer-based. I am interested in why you think computer-based testing is the way to go, as opposed to paper-based testing. Is this because of the efficiency and adaptive questions characteristic of digitalized testing? I ask because I lean in the opposite direction and from your suggestions, it seems like you also see how computer-based testing poses some very detrimental issues for today's students. For instance, the whole annotating piece that is missing from the reading section: do you really think it is possible for students to interact with a digital text in the same way they could a printed text, even if highlighting options are available? I am a little more wary that even if some of these issues are addressed, computer-based standardized testing will still add an extra cognitive load on the test taker and create more stress and fatigue.
Hi Melissa, I cannot stand standardized test and I think we need a new way to evaluate our students and teachers. I have no idea what the 'better' way is but there has to be one!!! As for now, I would say having these texts on a computer does seem to make sense however it scares me how much we put in our technology and expect our students to just know how to use it. Exploring the tests ourselves really opened up my eyes to see how much I know about computers and how much I don't. I think students need to be given a tutorial and do practice tests on computers before they are given one that 'counts.' This also makes me concerned about how much technology I should use in my classroom and that also frightens me at the same time. How do you see yourself preparing your students to take these type of tests while also teaching them the material they need to know
Post a Comment