Bill Ferriter got me thinking about standardized tests in a recent post. What are we expecting to glean from the resulting data of a student’s multiple choice work?
Perhaps a different question: What cannot be learned from standardized assessment data?
- Creativity: Given a blank canvas, what can this student develop?
- Process: How did this student arrive at her responses?
- Expansive thinking: Given a problem, how many unique solutions can this student generate?
- Articulated thinking: Can this student explain why one answer is better than another?
- Learning style: How can an educator best help this student to master the concepts in which she is deficient?
At best, we might look to standardized assessments to provide clues. Responses that demonstrate mastery of knowledge really only provide clues of mastery. Perhaps the student just learned the concept yesterday, and the learning will fade by next week. Perhaps the student guessed correctly. Perhaps the student is simply really good at taking multiple choice tests.
I don’t think the standardized test debate should be a pro/con argument. I think the discussion should move to values, costs and benefits. Does this type of assessment reflect our educational values? Is our investment in multiple choice assessment yielding sufficient educational benefit? Perhaps the job that we hire standardized tests to complete is better completed by a different assessment, or set of assessments.
