Standardized Testing- Yay or Nay?
This weeks readings went in depth to how much standardized testing has affected all aspects relating to schools. Whether that may be the curriculum or the people involved such as teachers, parents, students, etc., it has done one thing or another. Brozo- Simpson's insight on standardized testing was quite interesting for me, to say the least. From the reading, it made note that in the 1930's question formats became a popular means for assessing comprehension. This format has then been built over time into creating what we know as standardized test. As Brozo- Simpson put it, educators have been using this format as it is, "the most convenient, objective, and cost- effective means of comprehension assessment" (Brozo- Simpson, p. 92).
The uses for such tests may be great, but at what cost? It is said that they are good ways to evaluate whether students should be placed into special programs. Another thing is that they are used as interventions to determine effectiveness. However, are standardized test effective in showcasing the material learned in classrooms? Conversely, I know that schools do like to showcase that their students have high test scores.
In cases where schools are selective about their students, what does it mean for students who do poorly on standardized test? In some instances, students will not be helped as much because they rather see the majority of the students pass without considering the poor test takers into the spectrum. Standardized tests can be nerve wrecking and cause lots of stress, making the mind unable to focus during such tests. I don't know about you, but I personally have had bad experiences with standardized tests. As someone who is diagnosed with anxiety, standardized tests have been my pitfall for many years. I know that the new generation has had a rise in anxiety, so what are some ways educators can help reduce some anxiety for students about standardized tests?
In Au's article, Racial Justice Is Not a Choice, it discusses how racial inequality has lead to gaps in standardized test scores. Schools that have students from low- income households may get rid of students they consider as low achievers, specifically if that students is considered a minority. A problem in this is that students need to be supported regardless of what race they are, as well as religion, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc. The scores of these tests also do not take into consideration of where these students come from. The neighborhood they live in, the educational level of their parents, and access to resources. It leaves an unfair advantage for school districts who are unable to fund programs to aid with student learning and growth.
As Au stated, the main focus of these tests is that, "they miss most of the processes, experiences, and relationships that define teaching and learning" (Au, p. 36) If standardized tests are not showcasing these ideas, doesn't that mean there should be a change in how we formulate them? If you were to create a standardized test for your discipline, how would you design it? Would you have students be in the same classroom they learned the material in? Would it be an oral exam instead or a written one?
When I went to do my observations, I noticed the utilization of textbooks that have SAT questions in each lesson. However, are the students actually learning the material or learning how to pass the test? I don't think teaching to the test is what should be happening in classrooms. In learning, you need to form a connection in order to make the information concrete in your memory. Teaching to a test is one thing, but learning the material and being able to answer critical thinking questions is another.
On that note, some other questions I have are do you think standardized tests should be eliminated as a whole for schools? Would you think it be better to get rid of standardized tests on a nationwide level? Also, what are some of your experiences with standardized test? Do you notice any behaviors you do when you have a big test coming up? Does it affect how well you do on the test negatively or positively?
The uses for such tests may be great, but at what cost? It is said that they are good ways to evaluate whether students should be placed into special programs. Another thing is that they are used as interventions to determine effectiveness. However, are standardized test effective in showcasing the material learned in classrooms? Conversely, I know that schools do like to showcase that their students have high test scores.
In cases where schools are selective about their students, what does it mean for students who do poorly on standardized test? In some instances, students will not be helped as much because they rather see the majority of the students pass without considering the poor test takers into the spectrum. Standardized tests can be nerve wrecking and cause lots of stress, making the mind unable to focus during such tests. I don't know about you, but I personally have had bad experiences with standardized tests. As someone who is diagnosed with anxiety, standardized tests have been my pitfall for many years. I know that the new generation has had a rise in anxiety, so what are some ways educators can help reduce some anxiety for students about standardized tests?
In Au's article, Racial Justice Is Not a Choice, it discusses how racial inequality has lead to gaps in standardized test scores. Schools that have students from low- income households may get rid of students they consider as low achievers, specifically if that students is considered a minority. A problem in this is that students need to be supported regardless of what race they are, as well as religion, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc. The scores of these tests also do not take into consideration of where these students come from. The neighborhood they live in, the educational level of their parents, and access to resources. It leaves an unfair advantage for school districts who are unable to fund programs to aid with student learning and growth.
As Au stated, the main focus of these tests is that, "they miss most of the processes, experiences, and relationships that define teaching and learning" (Au, p. 36) If standardized tests are not showcasing these ideas, doesn't that mean there should be a change in how we formulate them? If you were to create a standardized test for your discipline, how would you design it? Would you have students be in the same classroom they learned the material in? Would it be an oral exam instead or a written one?
When I went to do my observations, I noticed the utilization of textbooks that have SAT questions in each lesson. However, are the students actually learning the material or learning how to pass the test? I don't think teaching to the test is what should be happening in classrooms. In learning, you need to form a connection in order to make the information concrete in your memory. Teaching to a test is one thing, but learning the material and being able to answer critical thinking questions is another.
On that note, some other questions I have are do you think standardized tests should be eliminated as a whole for schools? Would you think it be better to get rid of standardized tests on a nationwide level? Also, what are some of your experiences with standardized test? Do you notice any behaviors you do when you have a big test coming up? Does it affect how well you do on the test negatively or positively?
I absolutely DETEST standardized testing. Back in high school, I remember taking an ACT prep class and working on practice reading tests... I always received a different score on each test that I took. I think the reason my performance dipped on certain tests was because of the level of interest. Some articles were more interesting to me than others. I also found that I scored higher on reading tests that focused on topics that were interesting to me. With that said, I do not think standardized testing is an efficient way to assess a student's intelligence/college readiness.
ReplyDeleteAs for an alternative/modification to standardized testing, I am not entirely sure what we should implement. Here are some thoughts:
1) What if we put more focus on junior/senior research papers? Synthesizing papers that focus on a certain topic/argument is what students will be doing throughout their college careers. If students can effectively type a paper that has an argument/thesis and has evidence to support their argument/thesis, I feel like they can do anything in college.
2) If doing away with standardized testing is not an option, then what if we gave students more time to complete their ACT/SATs? It might take away from class time, but that may be a sacrifice that we have to make. I will also say that you are not alone in having anxiety issues. I know how anxiety can affect performance in all aspects of life. For test-taking specifically, anxiety causes brain-fog, and being short on time makes it worse. With that said, could students achieve higher test results by having more time to complete the test?
Off topic, but I really dig the shroom meme ;). Also dig the Ariel meme... Looks like you and that seems like a response you would have lol
I think putting more focus on Junior/ Senior papers would help in college preparedness, but I feel like that might backfire as I know some students do not care what they are doing in school. I think it would help in a honors or AP class as those are students who do want to be there more. In that case, the students might appreciate doing papers in that kind of way. Also if there is multiple papers and the student is unsure what they want to do in the future, it gives them room to explore different areas for study or fields of work.
DeleteGiving students more time may be beneficial as it helps create a little less stress overall. On days when standardized tests are happening, I think it would need to be scheduled for one whole school day. It would have to be figured out in the beginning of the school year to figure out how much extra time is allotted. Also, I know that the new generations have much more anxiety than past generations so having these tests are extremely stressful for them. Connecting back, that extra time would help students do much better. It could give an increase into overall scores which I think would be nice to see.
I'm glad you like my memes (-^w^-)
Standardized testing is a very tough topic, as it is hard to find other ways that can as efficiently measure a students ability or progress. The results are not always reliable for a students ability to succeed however. Personally I was always a fan of standardized testing because I was pretty decent at it, but I can see where the frustration comes. My least favorite part of standardized testing is the fact that it causes teachers to "teach to the test" and makes many classes just prep for the ACT or SAT. I feel this devalues the very idea of education and learning and instead quantifies it in some sort of ranking system to organize young people on some partial measure of their intelligence yet allowing this number to seriously direct the life of a person.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not like the idea of teaching to the test because I feel there is so much that can be done with our respective disciplines. I can agree that it does take away from the learning aspect and in the amount of freedom we can in educating the students. I'm sure there are ways to incorporate it into the classroom, but it does take away some of the activities that may of wanted to be done.
Delete