Critical Evidence
Doug Reeves is known for getting right to the point. In a recent article in the American School Board Journal (1), he continues that tradition. His point in the article is that folklore often prevails over evidence. This is true not only for students who will be exposed to more evidence-based reading than ever with the Common Core Standards. He also makes it clear that school leaders and teachers also must be critical consumers of research and facts. A few of the typical myths due to lack of critical review of the literature are:
· Giving everyone a trophy is an effective motivational strategy.
· Curriculum and instruction must be customized for every type of learner.
· If we had more data, we could make better decisions.
With all due respect to
Doug Reeves, I’d like to be so brazen as to add a few myths about assessment:
·
More standardized
testing will raise our students’ scores on international comparisons
·
One test is all
it takes to know how well students have mastered their learning· One test is all it takes to evaluate a teacher
· One test is all it takes for students to demonstrate college and career readiness.
Educational outcomes have
not improved with the advancement of standardized testing. This is a complex issue that can only be improved by looking beyond the core.
(1)Doug Reeves, Claims vs.
Evidence. American School board Journal, September 2012, pg. 36
posted by Assessment Network @ 4:03 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
The views on assessment by both Doug Reeves and the author are spot on. The myths that are spewed by both educational administrators and politicians alike are not helping the student be successful in the classroom or society, nor is it raising the standing of the U.S. in competition with the rest of the world. Currently Connecticut values the CMT (Connecticut Mastery Test) as the standard by which teachers, schools, and through association communities are now and will be judged. This is a comprehensive test that is given to students in the spring to evaluate not the student but the school’s academic standing.
One test given over three days, or less out of half a year is equivalent to judging a whole baseball team’s record based on one pitcher’s bad outing. Would you fire the coach, no longer attend any games, hire special pitching coaches, or not support the team because of one bad outing? No you would assess the team based on performance over the span of the season. In the same respect an assessment of students’ learning should be based on overall performance over the year not over three days or less.
One of the most prevalent myths mentioned in this post is that more standardized testing will raise our students’ scores on international comparisons. Countries that place more of an emphasis on quality teaching than standardized testing, such as Finland, constantly outperform the United States in international comparisons. More standardized testing would take away from valuable classroom time that could be spent teaching the students more content or teaching the students the same amount of content more effectively.
Classroom teachers need more time for formative assessments that will allow them to determine students’ strengths and weaknesses so they can adjust their instruction accordingly. This additional classroom time would also allow students to complete authentic assessments that would facilitate higher order thinking to improve conceptual knowledge. This increase in conceptual knowledge would help students ultimately perform better on standardized tests where they must apply their knowledge to a new question or situation. Taking more standardized tests would not promote this same higher order thinking that is necessary for students to perform well on future standardized tests.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home