I have always struggled in the school system with the idea of testing. I decided to put it into question and understand the research behind testing in schools. I wrote this research paper for my english class about testing. This was the conclusion I reached and discovered from the information I was able to gather. If anyone has any thoughts, research, or opinions on the subject speak freely! And I would love some answers to the question, if we eliminated testing as a way to grade students, how else can we evaluate students? I would love to know what you think!
Anti-Testing
Lizzie Holmes
Dec 17, 2013
ENG201: Barker
Anti-Testing
Introduction
I remember a time
sitting in the Testing Center with my exam. I began to observe others taking
tests around me. I saw someone nervously chewing the end of her eraser, and
occassionally tapped her pencil against the desk with a face of concentration.
I saw someone’s head leaning so close to his test, I feared he might jab his
pencil in his face. I also saw a girl twirling and pulling at her hair, and
students with their pencils flying at the speed of light. I walk out to see
faces of happiness or disappointment at the grade received on the screen. In
schools, testing has been implemented into almost every child’s curriculum.
They are used in ways to evaluate and measure the understanding of a concept.
But is it really an effective way to teach and measure understanding?
Background
In history standardized testing goes as far back as the ancient Chinese
dynasties. It describes in Encyclopedia Britannica (2013) people receiving
standardized tests as far back as the Han Dynasty (206 BC-220) and the Ming Dynasty
(1368-1644). This was used
as a means of evaluating the masses and their devotion to their country or
military applications. However, once invaders came the tests dissolved away.
According the Encyclopedia of Education by McDonald and Putnam(2012), in the 19th
century, schools had controversies about how applicable the material was.
The idea of geometry, for example, in a typical schoolhouse was creating the
perfect circle. However, Mann and many other education reformers in the 19th
century called for more applicable curriculum in the classroom. Mann was one of the first recorded people
to
suggest testing in schools as a way to evaluate overall
understanding in classrooms nationwide. As time went by, the US education reformed into a system of application and understanding.
According to The Encyclopedia Brittannica, in the 90’s George W. Bush assigned
to the country NCLB which required standardized tests across the nation to assess
the countries overall understandings.
Lines of Argument
Cheating and Pressure
Testing is ineffective
because it causes cheating and pressure for students and teachers. NCLB caused
many students and teachers to cheat on the standardardized tests. Because a student’s
preformance level on standardized tests will affect the teacher’s paycheck and
funding for the school. An example of this happening is in the article
“Teachers Reversing the Cycle” by Connie Titone and
Robert A. Duggan (2011). “A
state investigation identifies 22 teachers and other educators in poor urban
schools in Dallas and Houston as improperly assisting students on the TAKS
test, including distributing key answers in some cases” (p. 2). Teachers would
give their students easy tests or cheat so that they would get more money to
the schools. Teachers also wanted to keep their jobs and get a higher paycheck.
This pressure therefore miscalculated the knowledge students actually had on
the subject. In The book “The Developing Person: Through Childhood Adolescence”
by Kathleen Berger (2012) states, “Although 17 percent of U.S. students took AP
exams in 2010, about one-third of them failed. Far fewer take the IB exams,
but, again, few receive the highest scores. In 2010, only one graduate in nine
earned college credit based on an AP or IB exam—and that was an improvement over prior years”(p. 460-461).
Those grim statistics are enough to put a student on a lot of pressure. It
creates the questions, are students not performing well because they don’t know
the information when they take the test? Or is it just all the pressure created
from the test that causes the success rate to be so low? Maybe both? Many times
tests are at such high stakes the students can’t handle the pressure and causes
them to not perform what they actually understand. Culture differences and
ethnicities are effected by the high stakes testing as well and can cause some
students to score low. According to the Center on Education Policy, high-stakes
tests has, "a negative impact on low-performing students, students of
color, or students from low-income families" (2010, p. 1). Even those who
pass may be less excited about education.” (p. 461). Many different groups feel
different kinds of pressure because of their backgrounds and can add extra anxiety
on tests.
Hout and Elliot (2011)
in their research study “ Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in
Education”, joined with many panels of experts in education and found research
that concluded that testing actually reduces learning rather than advancing it.
They reached not only this conclusion but also as well that part of the reason
testing impedes learning is because there is no strong incentives to learn when
you test. It can be hard motivating students to want to test.
In conclusion, testing
can create a lot of pressure and cheating, and therefore the test won’t actually
reflect what they know
Skilled Test Taker
Another reason people
feel testing is ineffective is because not everyone is a skilled test taker. Berger
(2012) references the studies of a man named Paul Klaczynski (2011) comparing
thinking between children, young adolescents, and older adolescents. While
doing his experiment he found that adolescents have the ability to use logic
but they don’t always use it. This can be problematic when students take a test
because the lack of logic could lead to choosing the wrong answers and having a
bad grade. especially on the standardized
tests, because logic is constantly used on those tests. Another example of
students
failing to perform logically on tests is shown in an interview
with Julie Engstrom (J. Engstrom, personal communication, December 10, 2013). She
told a story about a teacher who had unknowingly illegally kept old standardized
tests. He used one of the tests to practice with his students in preperation
for the exam. It just so happens that the standardized test they had practiced
on was the same standardized test they were given the next day. Only the high
achieving students noticed it was the same test and did well. All the other
students did not realize they were taking the same test because they didn’t use
their logic. Not only can logic can be harmful when it is not used, but also it
is also harmful when it is being used. In the Article “Examinship of the
Liberal Arts” by William G. Perry (2012) tells a story about a boy at Harvard
University that sneaks taking a test for a class he didn’t take. Nobody noticed
and he took an exam with multiple choice and an essay portion. While he did not
pass the multiple choice, on the short essay portion he got an outstanding A. How
is this possible if he didn’t take the class or know the material? Sometimes
especially in written tests students are able to fake their way and present
information like they understand it. Students use logic to cover up what they actually
don’t understand. Testing limits a lot of people from performing well and
doesn’t actually show what a student knows or understands.
Creativity
Tests limit a student's
creativity in the educational school system. In article from Steven Wolk (2007),
“Why Go to School?” he talks about his fear of the growing attitude students have
towards school. A theme of this article is what could be called the “get it to
get it done attitude”. Instead of focusing on really what the class is about,
most of the focus is on just passing the test or the class. A lot of this
attitude comes from students being given a lot of busy work. Wolk (2007) argues that this busy work
stems from the standardized curriculum. Tests don’t give an
opportunity to use gifts and talents to express how much
one knows. Sometimes it’s just easier to take a test then to actually apply the
material into your life. Testing is creating a get it to get it done attitude,
students explore the information just to focus on passing the test rather than
really learning and applying into their lives. It
is important to prove understanding of what you are learning, but it is just as
important to prove they can apply it in their own lives. Having the attitude to
“just get it done” impedes creative opportunities.
Bad Test
Another Reason testing
is ineffective is because the test itself could be bad. My junior year of high
school my Christian teacher gave us a test on the story of “King Arthur”. He
told us to read be ready for a test the following day. The next day we go to
take the test and the questions instead were on Bible stories and the relationship
between Christianity and the story of “King Arthur”. To my teacher those seemed
like logical questions to test us on, however, it was not. We were not told to
look for Christianity related concepts as we read, or briefed about religious
bible stories or concepts. There were people who had never read the bible
before and didn’t believe in it. So many failed the test because they were not
taught those concepts. Had the teacher briefed us about these stories, concepts,
and other preparations, more students would have successfully passed the test.
This is an example of a teacher’s preconceived beliefs and ideas influencing
how a test is made. The problem is if the test does not match what the student
has learned, then the student will struggle. Engstrom stated a survey
experiment she conducted to teachers, students, and parents. She asked each of
them if the student successfully completed the study guide for the test, and what
grade would they get? Parents answered they would get the grade A, students
answered they would get the grade A, and teachers answered students would get
the grade C. Engstrom went on to explain the reason teachers said C was because
the test was about them displaying their critical thinking on the subject. She
questioned, Do the students know how to think at a
higher level or critical thinking? After being taught in basic lectures,
lessons, and material, will students really be ready for such hard critical
thinking when they have been only thinking about it on a basic level? A teacher’s
pre conceived ideas could impede a student from actually proving how much a
students actually understands, and therefore
not succeed in
doing well on the tests. Teachers can give bad tests and can cause ineffective
learning or incorrect measure of a students understanding on a subject.
Opposing View
Test Creativity
In the book “The Nature
of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives” by Robert J. Sternberg
(1988) he argues testing is a form of creativity. He explores many definitions
of creativity from many sources and makes the point that creativity is not just
about being artistic minded or crafty, it can be a thinking process. Many times
in society we use the term creative the way society does, such as arts, a
talent, etc. However, creativity is about thinking outside the box. Testing can
be a creative mental process for students to express their understanding of a
concept. It is a challenging way to get the mind thinking and reviewing your
understanding. However, while it may match the definition of creativity it
doesn’t mean that students will necessarily want or like taking a test. Another
issue with this though is testing causing more challenge or negative pressure? A negative pressure is problematic and very stressful on a
student, whereas a challenge opens up the mind to critical thinking.
Fix a Bad Test
Many propose that even
though students are given a bad test, it doesn’t mean that the test can’t be
fixed. In the book “Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us” by
Daniel Kortez(2008) as
well as the book “Test Scores” Sixth Edition by Howard B. Lynman (1998) they provide steps, questions, and evaluation questions as to how
to make the perfect test. They also suggest having another teacher check to see
how effect and ambigious a test might be for the students. If teachers take the
take the proper steps, as well as good test preparation then students will succeed.
If all else fails give the students a new and imrpoved test. Tests can be bad
but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all tests are ineffective. However,
teachers don’t always step up to the fact that their tests are bad and so they
will never improve. Sometimes teachers don’t refer to others to review their
tests and therefore never improve. And also the data is constantly debated and
uncertain as far as how to make a great test. In reality no one really knows
what a good test is.
Lazy Students
Many times teachers can be blamed for
the lack of students not performing well on tests. However, Ensgtrom in an
interview told a story of a teacher that had three different kinds of classes:
a higher level, average level, and a below average class. In each class 5
minutes before class concluded the teacher (each student listened intently)
stated their was going to be a test tomorrow. If anyone came in during lunch he
would give them the answers to the test. However, Only students in the high achieving
class actually came in during lunch to get the answers. Even though teachers
can give bad tests doesn’t necessarily mean students can’t be at fault for the
scores received on a test. With the right preparation students can be
successful. Some students can also receive accommodations
if needed to help them succeed. While students need to be held responsible for
their efforts on a test, teachers need to be careful classifying
students being “over achievers” and “under- achievers”. Not all students have a
IEP to be able to receive accommodations needed in order to
imrpove their test scores.
NCLB
According
to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Supporters of
NCLB cited its initial success in increasing the test scores of minority
students, who historically performed at lower levels than white students.
Indeed, Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign had touted the proposed law as a
remedy for what he called “the soft bigotry of low expectations” faced by the
children of minorities.” it provided a way to hold states accountable for the
education students were receiving. While this is honorable, many states did not
get the funding the schools needed that the bill required. Because of this the
temptation to cheat could rise due to schools not receiving enough funding. Are
they performing better because they cheated?
Conclusion
There are many benefits to testing that can be effective
to help students learn in school. It can help students
think outside the box and hold them accountable for what they learned. Testing
also is a very quick and easy way to evaluate. However, I believe the
disadvantages outweigh the positives. Test pressure is far to great and tests
are often to skewed to be able to effectively evaluate how much a students
understands because the temptation to cheat is high. Testing limits a students’
creative abilties in a way they will enjoy. Ineffective teachers can create a
bias on a test and because of this students grade won’t actually show what they
truly understand. So what do we do? As far as standardized testing goes though
I may not have a specific better alternative at mind I do think that reformers
of education should explore and experiment with alternatives than just testing.
In achievement testing some other alternatives could be:
self evaluation-The
student evaluates to the teacher the score they deserve.
projects- Students do
application projects to be graded on rather than a test.
progress monitoring-The
teacher takes notes of the progress they have made or accomplishments noticed
We can choose to keep
going with the rest of society and keep with the tradition of testing in
clasrooms. It is up to school boards, teachers, parents, students, and all of
us to come together to break this cycle of ineffective testing. Nothing can be
changed unless people unite and call out for reform. People like Mann saw
ineffective learning in school systems, and today we see that now through
testing. Testing is ineffective means in which to learn and teach in classrooms
so it is time to explore the alternatives. It is our choice whether or not we
accept tradition or rise up and defend our future generations.
word count (3000)
References
2. Sternberg, R. J.,
Rosenberg, B., & Kadamus, J. A. (2003, April 15). Standardized testing. Issues in
Science and Technology, pp. 18-19.
7. Educational assessment.
(n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2013, from Wikipedia website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_assessment
8. Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1). (1985). Hillsdale, New
Jersey/US: Lawrence erabaum
associates.
9. Barclay, J. R.
(n.d.). Controversial issues in testing
(S. C. Stone & B. Shertzer, Eds.). Houghton
mifflin
company.
10. Mehrens, W. A.,
& Lehmann, I. J. (1969). Standardized
tests in education. Holt, rinehart and
winston.
11. Hout, M., & Elliot, S. W. (Eds.). (2011). Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education
(Committee on
incentives and test-based accountability in public education, Board on testing
and
assessment, Division
of behavioral and social sciences and education, & National research
council of the
national academies, Comps.).
12. Seamons, R. (2012). Examsmanship of the liberal arts. In Way of wisdom (pp. 412-420). Rexburg, ID.
13. Murdock,
T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (Eds.). (n.d.). Psychology of academic cheating.
14. Duggan, R. A., & Titone, C. (n.d.). Teachers reversing the cycle. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_2#page-1
15. 5 alternatives to traditional grading methods. (n.d.). Retrieved from Smart Tutor Education Programs
website:
http://thinkonline.smarttutor.com/
5-alternatives-to-traditional-grading-methods-edchat-recap/
16. Encyclopedia
of education. (n.d.).
17. Lyman, H. B. (1998). Test Scores: And what they mean (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
bacon.
18. Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1969). Standardized
tests in education. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
19. Stone, S. C., & Shertzer, B. (Eds.). (1968). Guidance
monograph series. Boston, MA: Houghton mifflin
company.
20. Stone, S. C., & Shertzer, B. (Eds.). (1968). Controversial issues in testing. Boston, MA: Houghton
mifflin compant.
