Advantages and disadvantages of a testing system in education - Research Proposal Example

?Pedagogy depends on the capability of a teacher to test his or her for their knowledge of the material being presented to them. Testing serves a number of functions, two of which are the measurement of progress a student is making toward a predetermined goal of learning, and the provision of an incentive for a student to learn the material (and thereby perform well on the assessment). Without testing, teachers would rely on faith that their students have learning as one of their goals; however, this assumption, especially in the era of compulsory education, is simply out of touch with reality. Having established that testing is a necessary component of teaching, the question then becomes what kinds of testing are most effective in achieving the established ends of teaching, and how does one design a test that achieves these ends. To answer this question, one must consider the context (and the material) being taught and, instead of relying on generalizations, decide based on the costs of efficiency versus effectiveness in measuring genuine knowledge of the material. Although some tend to focus more on efficiency (standardized testing) and others on effectiveness (non-standardized testing), it seems the most appropriate, wide-reaching solution to the problem lies somewhere in the middle. A standardized test is a measurement instrument that is distributed and scored in a standard manner; that is, it is constructed with a particular set of conditions, questions, and scoring procedures that do not differ between individuals (Popham). Popular methods used on a standardized test include multiple-choice questions, which can be quickly and objectively scored on a large scale, making them cost-efficient and time-efficient to use. In contrast, a non-standardized test is a measurement instrument that gives different test takers a different exam, or relies on subjective or partially subjective criteria in the scoring of answers given on a completed test. Common methods used in non-standardized testing are essay questions, mathematical calculations, and open-ended responses. One advantage of standardized testing is that the results of such tests are empirically useful in terms of a large scale. For instance, public policy decisions can be made by looking at decreasing state-administered tests in public schools if deficiencies in a particular subject are patent. Also, because scores are objectively scored and documented, it is possible to demonstrate validity and reliability with a controlled experiment. If two children from the same classroom score in the same range, it could be said the test is a valid instrument for measuring knowledge. When a test is statistically reliable, it can be shown to be replicable on a larger scale (Kuncel and Hezlett). Aggregation is a term that refers to the collection of scores on the same test from many different test takers; this provides a mean, or benchmark, against which an individual test taker can be evaluated comparatively. This can provide useful information above and beyond subjective assessments from individuals in that elimination based on standardized scores can narrow a search for individuals based on objective criteria and thus make a search procedure more efficient in a useful sort of way. In addition, it is often said this use of objective standards for comparing individuals is fairer than other methods, which may take into account other factors that use subjective methods. Critics of standardized testing believe it is restrictive in that it necessarily confines and segments knowledge into rigid categories, focusing more on broad swathes of reading and math skills, as opposed to initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes”, which some believe are virtues for accomplished students and successful adults that are simply ignored under the standardized testing paradigm (Ayers 116). Another often-made criticism of standardized testing is the so-called “inauthentic” character of multiple-choice testing, which is the thought that multiple-choice testing is not representative of the desired out-comes of schooling; that is, multiple-choice testing of skills such as those involved with writing is incongruent with the effort to teach children how to write well, rather than answering questions in a standard format about what another author wrote well or wrote poorly (Elford 15). Lastly, critics of standardized tests believe these sorts of testing procedures create an atypical performance when students invest time and resources to generate a specific result, and it is not representative of their actual abilities or knowledge. Firstly, each of these positions both in favor and against standardized testing has their merits. There is certainly a degree of sacrifice between efficiency and effectiveness when one evaluates the various merits and shortcomings of a standardized test. However, treating standardized and non-standardized tests as a dichotomy is a false dilemma: the best solution for testing instruments is to provide a test that both tests knowledge in a standard way and, at the same time, allows for a human element to evaluate performance. These are hybrid tests in which some of the sections on the test are multiple-choice questions, which can be scored easily and objectively. The results of this standardized section, however, comprise only one part of the overall test score, so that evaluators do not overemphasize performance on a multiple-choice platform. Another part of the test, weighted depending on its importance relative to the entirety of the test, features a standardized set of open-ended questions and evaluation criteria, but allows the student to craft a response to them (Johnson 29-30). One well-known example of this model is the Advanced Placement Exam in Literature and Language, which both take students through lengthy multiple-choice sections, but also three open-ended essay portions based on a critical analysis of some writing. Similarly, the Graduate Record Examination General Test evaluates students’ abilities through standardized multiple-choice questions, but also has an Analytical portion in which the test taker must craft two essay responses to two prompts. A possible objection to the hybrid model of standardized testing, which combines elements of fixed-choice and open-ended testing, is one that is true of all standardized testing: namely, that they are unfair to culturally disadvantaged individuals who belong to particular cultural groups whose primary language is not English, they are typically poorer and thus unable to properly prepare, and so on (Goslin 12-13). The result of this problem is standardization: using the same standard to measure the achievement of all test takers. It is particularly important, one might argue, for a hybrid test that relies both on standardized multiple-choice and open ended essay responses, to create a test that can taken successfully by, say, a person who does not speak English as well, but has the same skills as a student who does have those language skills. Imaginably, one could create different standards for different groups; however, this would remove many of the advantages of standardized testing. The more salient fact in this situation here, however, is not whether a standardized test is unfair (or inequitable) because it discriminates, but whether a test is effective (or ineffective) because it discriminates. Because instruments like tests are designed to predict (with the highest levels of reliability possible) the success of individuals within broader society, it should be apparent that people who do not possess strong language skills or economic means will not perform well on the test. One cannot fault the test for uphold its own reliability in predicting a particular outcome. Where this is perhaps unfair is the single-minded focus on the standardized test score, which may create a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for the test taker, in which the test taker is trapped in a cycle of poor performance (Goslin 20). This criticism, while trying to protect test takers of different background, seems to make assumptions about their general abilities. It is fallacious to attribute an individual’s performance on a test to his background, especially if he or she is given adequate time to prepare. An objection to non-standardized testing, in general, is that non-standardized testing is performed by individuals, suffers from subjective criteria, and cannot be aggregated on a society level. In the classroom, the results of non-standardized testing are open to challenge from students and parents, who may not agree with the assessment given by an evaluator. Clearly, it is necessary, before designing a test, to ask what the purpose or end-goal of the test is. In the case of most standardized tests, it is to measurement performance on a large scale and to do so efficiently. For situations in which non-standardized tests are ideal, the goal must be to measure ability that cannot be measured with multiple-choice, or other fixed-choice question tactics. Therefore, a hybrid test containing both fixed- and open-response questions seeks to have both the aggregation and the ability to take into account less quantifiable skills. In order to prevent the scoring of a non-standardized section from being subjective, a test designer might establish objective criteria according to which individual evaluators must score responses, and to do so with a method that establishes inter-rater reliability (Trochim). The advantage of doing so is answering both critics of standardized testing and non-standardizing testing in a way that is practical for today’s testing environment and need for useful information on which we can base very important decisions about policy, education, and public welfare. Testing, whether standardized or non-standardized, plays a crucial role in the evaluation of individuals, both according to their own merits and as they relate to others. A hybrid of standardized and non-standardized responses (although both having objective criteria of evaluation) is the best means for establishing both an efficient and effective measuring instrument. This is being demonstrated today, with widespread shifts of the GRE, SAT, ACT, AP tests, and TOEFL tests to having a greater emphasis on “writing” sections to move beyond reliance on the multiple-choice format. Works Cited Ayers, William. To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher. 2nd. New York: Teachers College Press, 2001. Elford, George W. Beyond Standardized Testing: Better Information for School Accountability and Management. Washington, D.C.: R&L Education, 2003. Goslin, David A. Criticism of Standardized Tests and Testing. Eric Report. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1967. Johnson, Drew. Parent's Guide to Standardized Tests for Grades 3-5: A Complete Guide to Understanding Tests and Preparing Your Child for a Successful Test-Taking Experience. New York: Kaplan Publishing, 2003. Kuncel, V. R. and S. A. Hezlett. "The Utility of Standardized Tests: Response." Science, Vol. 316 (2007): 1694-1697. Popham, W. James. "Why Standardized Test Scores Don't Measure Educational Quality." Educational Leadership, Vol. 56 (1999): 8-15. Trochim, William M.K. Types of Reliability. 20 October 2006. 30 July 2011 . Read More