An easy case can be made that current testing methods, particularly high-stakes testing is flawed. It does not account for the (a) current mental state of the student, (b) offers test questions inaccurately stated or unclear, (c) measures only a small fraction of the material studied, and (d) places undue stress upon the students. All true, true, true.
The alternatives to each of these objections create their own problems. In the following let us exclude the issues of inaccuracy and clarity. Each of them have the same issue which denies their suggested solution. Each solution is prohibitively expensive. Each involves a lot of higher level intervention in the examination of student work. Each involves a larger examination to more fairly cover expected outcomes.
Specifically, every test creates stress. Think back to the time when you passed your driver's licensing road test. Whew! This is what you said when it was over and you passed. This is the case with tests of all types, and taken throughout all of life. If anything, critics should celebrate the simple fact that life is a series of tests, for good or bad. Even the military officer wishing to advance in the ranks must past performance tests. With no prior experience, the stress is even higher than it might be. Indeed, you may be challenged to determine any profession where some sort of advanced (and stressful) test is NOT involved.
Does testing distort the learning process? This question recently posed at our online journal on mathematics and pedagogy. (See http://disted6.math.tamu.edu/newsletter/index.htm.) Of course it does. So what? Without the testing, the teachers would distort the learning process by simply emphasizing the curricula they deem more necessary. The reason we have these completely unfair tests is exactly this. Without it students in class A learn a distorted curricula and are disadvantaged when they get to course B - taught by another teacher. Without the testing, the new Common Core Curriculum would be a farce. With no summary testing, there could be no assurance the curricula is being taught as prescribed.
As to the "current mental state" of the student on test day, this is an unfortunate artifact of any and all testing systems. The system in the USA allows students, year by year, to recompense their testing scores, hopefully minimizing errant results based on aberrant mental states.
I'm a teacher, you're a teacher. If I don't give exams, I cannot know how my students are doing, if they are studying, or if they understand what they have studied. I cannot expend hundreds of hours assessing students' abilities with one-on-one interviews. I must give these delimited, unfair, and stressful tests. Do you?
"If all teachers were doing their jobs as defined and desired, and if all student were doing as well, there would be no need for the design and determination of performance measures. " www.HyperSmash.com
The alternatives to each of these objections create their own problems. In the following let us exclude the issues of inaccuracy and clarity. Each of them have the same issue which denies their suggested solution. Each solution is prohibitively expensive. Each involves a lot of higher level intervention in the examination of student work. Each involves a larger examination to more fairly cover expected outcomes.
Specifically, every test creates stress. Think back to the time when you passed your driver's licensing road test. Whew! This is what you said when it was over and you passed. This is the case with tests of all types, and taken throughout all of life. If anything, critics should celebrate the simple fact that life is a series of tests, for good or bad. Even the military officer wishing to advance in the ranks must past performance tests. With no prior experience, the stress is even higher than it might be. Indeed, you may be challenged to determine any profession where some sort of advanced (and stressful) test is NOT involved.
Does testing distort the learning process? This question recently posed at our online journal on mathematics and pedagogy. (See http://disted6.math.tamu.edu/newsletter/index.htm.) Of course it does. So what? Without the testing, the teachers would distort the learning process by simply emphasizing the curricula they deem more necessary. The reason we have these completely unfair tests is exactly this. Without it students in class A learn a distorted curricula and are disadvantaged when they get to course B - taught by another teacher. Without the testing, the new Common Core Curriculum would be a farce. With no summary testing, there could be no assurance the curricula is being taught as prescribed.
As to the "current mental state" of the student on test day, this is an unfortunate artifact of any and all testing systems. The system in the USA allows students, year by year, to recompense their testing scores, hopefully minimizing errant results based on aberrant mental states.
I'm a teacher, you're a teacher. If I don't give exams, I cannot know how my students are doing, if they are studying, or if they understand what they have studied. I cannot expend hundreds of hours assessing students' abilities with one-on-one interviews. I must give these delimited, unfair, and stressful tests. Do you?
"If all teachers were doing their jobs as defined and desired, and if all student were doing as well, there would be no need for the design and determination of performance measures. " www.HyperSmash.com
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.