Saturday, October 25, 2014

ED615: Module 1 Reflective Essay

     Throughout my academic career, I have taken multiple standardized tests from the HSA to SAT. Since high school I have taken the Maryland High School Assessments (HSA), SAT, multiple AP exams, and multiple Praxis exams. For the HSA I took the Algebra, Government, English, and Biology HSA and for the Praxis I took the Biology, Physics, and Grade 7-12 PLT exam. For AP exams, I took Government, Psychology, World History, Calculus AB and BC, Statistics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics C: Mechanics, and Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism. As you can see I took a high number of standardized tests in both college and high school where I supposedly was being tested on standards, how much I know about certain content, or how I would perform in the future.


     I do not think that most of them really indicated evidence of learning despite what they may have hoped. My experience with most of these tests is that it tested my rote memory rather than my thinking skills. First I think we have to define what it means to demonstrate “evidence of learning.” Popham (2014) defines evidence of learning as “evidence in the form of student performance on classroom tests.” However, other authors consider that certain methods other than written tests are more beneficial ways of allowing students to demonstrate evidence of learning (Stringer, 2008). I consider evidence of learning occurs when students are able to apply their content knowledge to new, unknown situations. Based on what I consider evidence of learning, the only test I would consider to be good indicators would be the AP science exams (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics). Those exams, as I remember them, had me actually apply my content knowledge to types of problems I had not seen before or could not answer by just memorizing my notes. For the rest of the exams I feel as though they merely just tested my rote memory.

     What I think really motivated the development of standardized testing is the need for a way to compare students to each other and to standards to see progress. Standardized testing also developed as a means of seeing the effectiveness of teachers because if teachers were effective in the classroom then theoretically their students would do well on standardized tests. With educational reform becoming a hot issue, standardized testing is changing and developing even more with new tests such as the PARCC and Common Core standards. Snowman & McCown (2012) say that assessments are necessary in order to determine the level of achievement of students or teachers. As the standards change and what we hope to prepare our students for change as well, the assessments should and will change to stay relevant. Common Core is just starting to change how English and Mathematics are being taught and assessed, but soon I am sure it will spread to the other subject areas.

References

Popham, W. James. (2014). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. Pearson Education, Inc.

Snowman, J. & McCown, J. (2012). Psychology applied to teaching, 13th Ed. New York: Cengage Learning.

Stringer, Ernie. (2008). Action research in education, 2nd edition. Pearson Education, Inc.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Minh, I agree with you, in that AP exams have been great indicators of applying knowledge and skills learned in those specific courses on the exams. Most other standardized tests do not take individual thinking skills into account. I was wondering, how you would modify standardized testing, like the SAT or other tests that you feel are based on rote memory, in order to either take away or add certain components to promote extended thinking and comprehensive skills on those tests?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Minh, you mention that standardized testing came about because they were looking for a way to measure the effectiveness of teachers as well as student learning. Where do you think we went wrong with effectively measuring teacher performance and student learning?

    I had training today which explained the types of questions that students will encounter on the English part of the PARCC test. I left the training with a solid understanding of how the test requires students to think at a higher level. Why did it take us so long to get to this point? I just think of the 8th grade students in my school who read at a second or fourth grade level. Clearly, those students took standardized tests along the way for several years up until now and each time they must have demonstrated evidence of not learning. If standardized tests 20 years ago required the high level of thinking that the PARCC test requires (and the common core emphasizes), do you think that we would still have students who are underperforming so drastically today? Wouldn’t all students be used to thinking critically? Why do you think it took the curriculum writers and test writers so long to realize that these students were not learning at all?

    ReplyDelete