As cliché as
it sounds, there is no standard way of learning, so why is there a quantified
and "standardized" of assessing students' performances? Most of these
tests have the same style of texts that are thrown at students and expected to
be read, remembered, and referred back to when they turn to begin answering the
nerve wrecking questions. The structure of these standardized tests are so repetitive
than it is mind numbing after a short while, just ask any student in the midst
of ACT/SAT season. Students are not given the opportunity to showcase what
makes them an individual and a scholar. There are no chances to use graphic
organizers or to make own yourself to demonstrate what goes on in your mind
when tackling a specific subject or school of thought. Everyone wants to show
their greatest abilities when given the opportunity to, but what if you lack
the means to demonstrate your passion?
If you have your students taking a cookie cutter test with no space for them to structure and scafold their thinking, they will develop the mind set that there are only certin ways that you can solve tasks; that there is no room for creative thought and/or ingenuity. Students may develop minds for taking information from a source and using it to solve questions placed in front of them but doesen't there seem to be a gap for the area that should be available for specific content-based text and forms of understanding within descliplines?
As stated in the reading Disciplinary Literacy Assessment: A Neglected Responsibility, " Summative assessments of
learning have overshadowed formative assessment
for learning. Assessment of discipline- appropriate literacy
is an all but ignored topic in the professional
literature."(Gillis, Wig, 2015) This best summarizes the current state of mind when it comes to assessments: Instead of having tests that understand the student's abilities in a more precise, micro scale, student progress is gathered in a macro, wide ranging format so as to try to get as much data as possible. This is not helpful for the student or teacher, because it does not leave a concrete, precise area that can be improved upon in the time that is left within the unit or school term.
The SCLA seeks to fix this gap within the specialization of content within an assessment, for it is "a teacher-created assessment of students’ abilities to read and comprehend discipline- appropriate text. The assessment measures students’ abilities to connect what they read to prior knowledge, summarize what they read, draw inferences, make intertextual connections, comprehend vocabulary terms that are explicitly and implicitly defined in the text, and think metacognitively" (Gillis, Wig, 2015). As a future history teacher, I must say that this style of assessment is much more appealing for several reasons.
Many assessments centered in the humanities or social sciences take a non fiction text that summarizes the historical background of an event, person, or idea through a story-type medium. While this is functional (to a degree) for getting a historical timeline into a student's mind, it is missing the comprehension, analyzation, and reasoning that truly makes for an assessment of value for the student and teacher.
The SCLA offeres teachers the ability to adapt the test to understand how strong the student's abilities are in several elements, including Questioning, Drawing Inferences, Making Connections, and Vocabulary Knowledge. Each element is able to take several shapes depending on the subect being tested (English, Science, History, and even Math), plus the elements can be tested within shorter or longer time periods, depending on the amount of text used and the types of questions being asked of the students. The student and teacher are able to take the results of these assesments and use the data to structure the lessons being given so that the gap is filled and remains filled throughput the progression of the school term, bulding a pathway to the next unit or grade level for the pupil.
Uriel,
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about history exams. History is often misunderstood as just facts, when really us historians just use the facts in our analyzing, contextualizing, arguing, and making connections. Although I still hate the idea of a *test*, the one suggested by SCLA sounds like an OK idea. There are too many variables that are involved with mass testing regardless of the test or who makes it to get trustworthy data in my opinion but, if adopting that would shift our focus from Paulo Freire's banking concept of education, to one where we are encouraged to learn how to think, I would be here for it.
Jessica, thank you very much for your comment. I share your sentiment toward testing in general. I think that placing that much pressure onto one or two tests can cause great amounts of strain on students. Mass testing will always be a tricky subject because it is impossible to make a test that caters to the learning styles of all students. However, assessments are a neccesity to one degree or another and so I believe we should at least continuously try to make as much progress as we can do that we obtain valueable and useable information to foster the growth of our students. I wholheatedly agree that we need to teach students how to think for themselves while relying on peer revised research to back their claims.
DeleteI definitely agree that there is way too much assessing going on, especially in CPS. Even in the primary grades, we (teachers and students) feel the stress and pressures to perform well. In addition to the number of assessments, I have issues with the purpose of assessment. For example, I have to administer BOY, MOY, and EOY reading comprehension assessments to my students. I actually don't mind this, although it is a bit time consuming, because I use this data to form groups, determine students' reading levels, and figure out what my students know and where I need to take them next. I also like the assessment because it allows me to see student growth (and hopefully not regression) in their reading abilities. Administration and Central Office solely look at the colors. If a student is below level, they are red. If a student is red at the BOY and still red during the MOY, it is an issue. Admin and Central Office aren't looking to see that a student was reading a kindergarten level and is now reading on a first grade level, which clearly shows growth. They just see red and assume that we aren't doing our jobs in the classroom. That annoys me. Why mandate an assessment if your intent is not really to determine growth?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, my school takes NWEA MAP testing at the end of the school year. This is where the big pressure comes in to play since all of second grade makes up 5% of the school's rating (as opposed to all 3-8 grades combined only make up 2.5%). My boss rides second grade HARD because naturally, she wants good school ratings. However, I feel like the conversation is more about the rating and not about the student learning. Last year, my grade level partner and I crammed multiplication and division, adding fractions, and other concepts that are not even a part of second grade standards, into their heads. We didn't these concepts for mastery; we taught these concepts so they could experience what the CPS considers success on the NWEA test, which, by the way, is NOT supposed to be used for mastery. The assessment is actually designed as a tool for teachers to see, again, what their students know, and where to take them next. Even still, we only take it in May/June, so the data is essentially useless because not many teachers are going to completely overhaul their instructional plans that close to the end of the school year.
All in all, my long rant is simply to say, assessment has grown way out of control to the point where the goal is no longer to be meaningful for the students and the teacher for planning instruction. Now it's all about how can we make the school look good?
Tiffini,
DeleteLast year I was a classroom Aide for an 8th grade class. The NWEA was spoken of everyday like it was the boogeyman. The students were nervous and had anxiety up to the day of the actual test. I found it astounding how the NWEA was given so much power to determine where these students went for high school and how the teachers were going to be evaluated by administration officials. There is something very wrong when a single test has the ability to determine everyone's future (not just the students). Student progress should be monitored and improved upon regularly and not just determined once at the end of the year when it is too late to help them. We owe our students so much more than a packet of paper that can turn their world's upside down in an hour.
Though the idea of SCLA type of testing sounds like good way to test students in specific content areas, I feel that in the long term its not really a way to check or student benchmark readiness. I agree that the amount of tests students take, especially elementary students, is rather high. However, I feel that standardized testing certainly has its merits. Realistically, it is probably the most cost and time effective way to gauge the growth of students nationally. I feel that problem with these types however, is the way they are structured. Just like you said, theres no space for students to scaffold their thoughts, and it certainly can lead students to become discouraged. I think that with some restructuring of standardized tests and keeping in mind how students learn, can actually be good ways to establish benchmarks.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I would be in complete favor of eliminating standardized testing because I think that they do offer some benefit but not as much as some people might believe. But surely we can give primary school students a break from the many tests that they (small children) have to take. More than anything, at this age they need to be understood by their teachers throughout the term so that intervals of prgression can be made instead of just learning where the gaps are at the end of the year when it is too late.
DeleteStandardized tests are, in short, one of the many ways the neoliberal agenda has put American schools in the middle of the road for education. The contracts forged with the ACT (and now SAT) have forced students to learn generalized knowledge instead of respecting a more "free" and inclusive education.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, federal education officials have used standardized testing to measure "scholastic growth". This is in part caused by a growing fad of competition, this notion that if we privatize our schools and add in competition, we will soon be ranked highly in education. If we are to take the way of standardized tests and private education, our schools and universities will end up looking more like Shanghai, where test scores are high but many people fall victim to rote memorization and academic dishonesty to succeed.
It is my belief that along with abolishing standardized tests, we need an end to private education, greater public funding for our schools, an end to schools that are only as well-funded as their area's residents are rich, and a need to focus on a creative classroom instead of a memorization factory. It is enticing in society to immediately say all of our problems can be fixed by the "Scandinavian system" but it is my belief that we can learn a great deal from the education systems in Sweden, Norway and Finland, to name a few.
I was someone who always did well on standardized tests, but I never felt much pride in that. It was just a series of bubbles after all, it did not mean I could write an opera, fix a car or diagnose a broken leg. We need to focus on the strengths of the students by allowing teachers the space to do so. Drawing on what Jessica has stated, Freire's critique of "banking education" carries much weight in our current society, and it is within the best interests of education to avoid banking and move towards what the Finnish say, "Whatever it takes". It is a pleasant thought, though teachers and students need to be given the tools to be critical, creative thinkers.
Joe,
DeleteI agree with much of you said, especially about ending the privatization of schools and the fact that a school is only as well resourced as the value of the surrounding home properties. Everyone likes to say that they key out of poverty is education, but they often forget that the other pivotal key out of poverty is resources. If we do not provide all schools with a fair shot to excell and improve their schools,the students may never leave the economic pressures that surround them. No student should be held back by their environment when they are doing the best they can to thrive where others (slot of them minority students) fall victim.
Being a teaching of mathematics undergrad I despise the idea of standardized testing. You simply cannot understand how a student reasons with a standardized test. These are awful ways of assessing students. Your introduction really "hits home" with me. A lot of students become bogged down because this "test" tells them they can't get into a college because they aren't smart enough. Passion is everything. Myself, lost enthusiasm in school during my time in engineering because i did not have a passion for it. I think about helping students on a daily basis and I cannot help but feel myself warmup inside. Being able to express this motivation that a students contains is critical for their future learning. We as teachers need to remember that our students have dreams; that every student comes in with "different strengths, different needs, different gifts, different dreams." This quote gives me the "goose bumps" every time because of how powerful the implications can be. This idea of standardization is outrageously preposterous because it does not take into account all the differences within the classroom.
ReplyDelete