Monday, August 25, 2008
3. Why Test?
Think about the tests you took as a high school student and explain what you think their purpose was. Next, explain what you think tests ought to accomplish--how, ideally, should your LR professors test you? Draw on the work of Goodman and Ravitch in your response. Due Wednesday, 27 August.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Why test? As a high school student, I think test were somewhat good and somewhat not so good. The good facts about testing, is that I think it helps the teacher know where the student stands in their class. Goodman says, "For the important purpose of placement. . ." Which I agree with, not only does testing help the teacher find their student's weakness, but help to better that weakness. The not so good facts about testing, is that it shouldnt be used to judge people on their down-falls and then put them in a lower level of education. Ravitch states, ". .test should be used to improve education, not ration it. Every child should have access to high-quality education." I also agree with Ravitch's opinion on this. I think test ought to accomplish the opportunity of bettering your education, such as the teacher giving the test, but not grading it and helping us correct our mistakes. But a test shouldn't be used to get into a certain college, I think everyone should have the opportunity of going to wherever they choose. The point of going to college is to expand our education, so why should we have to take a test to attend? There are many other ways our LR professors could test us, simply as asking our opinion on a statement they may make. You don't always have to have a test on a piece of paper, it can be oral as well. Helping a student be involved in class can be a way of testing their knowledge. But don't get me wrong, im not completely disagreeing with tests, the point is there is a time and place for them.
All tests are essentially tools to evaluate one's progress in a certain field. The results of said tests can then be used to strengthen weaknesses or show that a student can move on from that area. I think Ravitch said it best about what it would be like without tests when she said, "It is like pushing them into a deep pool before they have learned to swim". Without knowing whether or not a student is ready to move on progress is unlikely to be made. Even so, I agree with Goodman on several points. "inviting the student to conceal his weakness, by faking or bulling, if not cheating?", is an excellent point on the negative effects testing can bring. He also makes a good point on what the pressures of testing can bring when he said, "Such a student will retain nothing of what he has "passed in"." Goodman is speaking of the pressure to make the grade instead of learning the material, which is common to a lot of students. Personally, I feel tests are inevitable. There's no better way to asses one's knowledge of a subject. Most people who have problems with tests are either lazy, or simply don't study enough. If everyone was given a test and grade on where they was from, their name, and several other ridiculous questions of that sort, they would gladly take their A without complaint. The point is, if you know the material then what's the big deal?
As a student in high school, the purpose of taking tests by our teachers was to see how well you knew the subject of the class. It gives a good feedback to the teachers to let them know if he or she taught the students well enough. If the teacher sees that a student got a bad grade on the test, then they can find a better or new way of teaching to get the students to make better grades on quizzes and tests. Not only that, but to see how well you know the stuff, if you are paying attention or not. But some people are bad test takers. I don’t think we should be tested in college because we’ve already taken tests in high school. Because we are in college now, in my opinion I think college is suppose to expand your education about the world and your major. I do believe that we should take IQ tests in college. In Ravitch’s work, he says “The point of IQ testing was to find out how much children were capable of learning rather than to test what they had actually learned.” I also think that if you don’t get a good score, then they don’t deserve to be in college because they haven’t learned much in high school. In Paul Goodman’s work, I agree about this statement when he says “If the aim is to discover weakness, what is the point of down-grading and punishing it, and thereby inviting the student to conceal his weakness, by faking and bulling, if not cheating?” Taking a test can improve some of the students’ weaknesses.
At a young age, students are taught that a test is an assessment of knowledge. Throughout elementary school, middle school, and high school students had test to assess not only the knowledge they learned in their classes but also basic knowledge to "help assess the school's curriculum and how well the teachers are doing on covering the material" but that just meant the test just was to see if the students could retain the knowledge for an extended period of time. As each test approaches an unnecessary amount of stress is piled on the student to relearn, or for some just plain learn the material covered. But without these test the classes could not be passed, or even graduate. Without testing how could students prove that they not only were about to learn the material, retaining the material, later relying the material back. Both Paul Goodman and Diane Ravitch address the importance of testing, both stating that it is a fair assessment of knowledge and an excellent way for teachers and employers to know how well of a student or future employee they are or will be. Ideally, I would prefer that each of my exams were solely based on my level of understanding of the material. Ideally, there would be no need of tests because each professor would see that I have been able to master the material through class participation. But that is my ideal testing, and if my ideal testing was the case than Goodman’s point of that the “effect of grading is to nullify the various acts of testing” would be wholly accurate. However, where is the improvement? How will I know, or teachers know, or even employers know if I have improved from test to test? Ravitch explains how there are efforts put into place to help each student succeed in the testing arena, but why is that necessary if there is no set average point or any grading at all. In the essays it is clear that both Goodman and Revitch want to improve society, but how can either see that they have made an impact without the graded test scores. Goodman cannot see if his theory of abolishing grades is the ideal way to teach. Ravitch cannot see if the efforts implemented truly were working to help each student improve. There is no ideal form of testing; there is no right or wrong way to administer a test or to ‘study ‘for a test. However there is no place for my ideal testing, but nor is there a time or place for Goodman’s. Testing is going t take place like it always has, it will always be a nescience but a necessary. You can fantasize about an ideal test, whether that is how to take the test or how the test is given, but a test will still be a test, a way of life and an assessment of knowledge.
At my high school, we had the regularly scheduled tests on each chapter of the text book or so that the students knew they would be taking. Then there was always that one teacher that found humor in torturing students by making them take tests when they least expected it, also known as "pop quizes." These types of tests were not so bad unless you were the type of student who decided that you did not need to do the readings or the homework assignments. In that case, you were pretty much screwed, for lack of a better word. Or, if you are anything like me, I tend to do better and retain more information if I know there is a test coming. I study and study and usually make up phrases to help me remember the information that I am learning.
With that said, I agree with Diane Ravitch's essay about testing. Although we may not like to be tested, "tests and standards are a fact of life." She says, "history reminds us that tests should be used to improve education, not ration it." I completely agree with this statement simply because I think testing is a good evaluation of the student because it lets the teacher know how the student is doing. Paul Goodman makes the point that many students are just lazy so teachers try to threaten them with grades. He believes that people shoud be treated like adults so if they do not want to do the work the teacher should not threaten them with grading and tests. I personally do not think teachers test to scare students. I think they test students to simply find out how much information the student is retaining or how well they are actually teaching the subject.
I think that our LR professors should just test us the way they do, with the exception of pop quizes. It IS necessary to test people because you do not want to send a doctor out to save a life or a lawyer out to defend someone with out knowing if they fully know what they are doing.
Taking tests can be difficult for us, students, no matter how high our grades can be because we always get nervous about tests. We study so hard or lazily don’t worry about them so they just take them, don’t care if they fail or get higher grade. Sometimes I don’t get it… some students who don’t take test so serious and still pass them even if they don’t study at all. I always think whoever studies so serious and work hard to deserve better than others who hang loose mostly. However, maybe because of our tense causing us to not thinking straight on tests. Ravitch is right that no one wants to be tested, no matter how much there are, there’s always test in our lives even in our future careers as my parents told me. Ravitch gives his example that taking test was to find out how much the students have learned from classes and being encouraged to exert more effort. Also on the point of IQ was to find out how much children were capable of learning rather than to test what they had actually learned. One question, why is the IQ test important to the students if they already have tests at schools where they can take? Maybe it could prove us that there’s challenge for students who have higher hopes to be what they wished to be in the future. However Goodman has a point for many students being lazy to take test serious so teachers try to push or threaten them by grading, but would it work on all students who are lazy? Not a hundred percent. Laziness is a character-defense as Goodman said so, as it might be a way of avoiding learning but also a way of avoiding just the risk of failing and being down-graded like I just explained about being nervous. In my opinion, taking test is to improve your knowledge of learning through year at school and find your weakness before you decide to choice of major. It can be easy way for everyone if they keep taking test to find out which one is strength or weakness.
Most of the tests I have taken in my high school career have to assess my knowledge of covered material. All the EOCs I have taken and the AP US history exam I sat for tested how in-depth my knowledge of certain subjects. It was only through my teachers tests that I was examined on skill sets I’d learned and my ability to apply abstract concepts to actual work. While the state tests were always a breeze, I understand that standardized testing is the only effective way of discovering what kids know and what they don’t. Universal testing isn’t perfect as there are certainly bright people who perform poorly on the tests but it’s the best we can hope for. Goodman didn’t seem to recognize this. He thinks testing pits “one young fellow against another in an ugly competition” when in fact the competition encourages personal growth. Without any incentive, why wouldn’t uninterested students just sleep through class instead of learning? Laziness in students is not just a ‘character-defense,’ its just laziness. Not all the students in a math class really care about math, they just learn the stuff so they can pass which, though it isn’t the best method, they still end up learning and taking something away from the class. Ravitch made an excellent point in that tests help to protect society. Just because someone wants to be a doctor does not qualify them to grab a scalpel and start cutting someone up. They need to be trained to the max, hopefully taking enough tests they could do it in their sleep. Both the authors make an interesting point in reflecting back on times gone by. Goodman claims that in the medieval universities had the right idea in only testing someone to see if they would be “accepted as a peer.” However he didn’t consider that the test probably had more of an impact than just acceptance, it was about proving yourself worthy and a master of what needed to be mastered. Students prove that they have mastered material through standardized tests which, in turn, allow them to remain with their peers instead of getting held back a year. Ravitch talks about IQ testing segregating children into those who should excel and those who aren’t likely to. This system, as he shows, creates almost a self-fulfilling prophecy for the youth. Those in the honors classes are taught more and learn more. Those in the dumber classes are given lesser versions and not expected to do as well. I think the tests at Lenoir Rhyne should be designed to both test you knowledge of the material and be able to actually apply what you’ve learned in different ways. It would be the most effective way to see if someone is where they need to be, in the academic sense.
My most recent judgement based on my SAT score was just a month or two ago when I came to the first Jumpstart date here at LR. I went into the library to discuss my schedule with my advisor. She began by asking me what my scores were in the individual sections of the SAT. Upon hearing my grade for math she immediately changed my math course from pre-calculus to statistics. To me, this was empowering because I felt smarter knowing that my advisor felt I was smart enough to handle one of the hardest math classes there is, as a freshmen. Now this can be a fair judgement or one thats very biased. I feel that my SAT scores reflect my knowledge of math, english, and writing fairly well but if there was a history section I am certain I would have bombed it. This doesn't necessarily mean that I don't know about the historical aspects of our nation but a low score on a test such as the SAT can give people the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about. With this being said, I agree with Diane Ravitch when she says, "Tests and standards are a fact of life." All students know they will be tested on the material learned in class and also by taking the SAT and ACT. However, most students only remember the information they are requried to know for that exam and the rest is forgotten. The best way for me to remember information is for the professor to ask me a question during class because we can work it out together and it may benefit other students who should be listening. If I figure out the answer with the aid of my teacher than I am more likely to remember the answer. The only thing that particularly bothers me about testing is that the standardized tests are typically geared towards the Ivy League schools, which was mentioned in Paul Goodman's article. This bothers me because there are more students who attent reqular universities than those who attent the few Ivy League schools in this nation. Besides this, I think tests are very helpful. Some people tend to judge others based on their scores but for the most part it gives the students a good idea of where they stand amongst their peers.
What is the purpose of a test? As a former high school student, I had to take many tests. Some tests I don't even know the why I have to take it anyway. So what is the true purpose of tests? In my opinion, it is for a basic understanding of the subjects to see if students really understood the course. Most tests I'd took in high school are required tests. Each have an End of course Test which there is absolutely no exemption, an vocational tests (Vocats) no exemption, and than the teacher made tests which are not required and only those students who have a failing grade or too many absences have to take it. But this is the guidelines for all schools when it comes to the semeeter's end. However, the tests taken after a chapter in the textbook, I think is necessary too. These tests are written by the teacher(s) so it is much more explainable for students when receiving the scores. I agree with Goodman when he states that testing not only help the teacher to find student's weakness, but to better that weakness. I believe that most of the tests I have taken in my 4 years in high school had helped improve my test taking strategies for certain courses. Tests can also be a deceitful negative because it detects people's downfall. Tests limit students from challenging themselves in a higher educational class. Yet, I agree with Ravitch when she states, "It is important to recall that for most of this century, educators used intelligence tests to decide which children should get a high-quality education." Teachers should not use intelligence tests to decide for children at all because not all students will be able to go with the flow. One size shoe does not fit for all. Other students who does not pass the IQ test are also capable to taking the same classes as well. In addition, it is true that today's educators are much more worried about the final state tests and only teaches the basic facts for their students. Both Goodman and Ravitch are correct about the tests for certain legal issues such as a driver license or any licenses in a specific field of work. It is understandable that to enter a college everyone must take a test of some sort. Yet, I don't quite agree with Goodman on the idea of using test scores to judge students if they are right for a college. The best idea is to see if a student is well developed or rounded person. Colleges should consider that students do have a life outside of school. Of course, there are a variety of ways our professors here at LR can test us. The tests are easy to do but sometimes writing on paper is the only choice since some students will not participate for class discussion even when it is a test or open-ended discussion. Sometimes an educator got to do what they do best to improve.
Tests are seen to measure the knowledge and skill of a student in a certain class. While some tests in my high school accomplished this, others did not. I found that my teachers found tests as a way to threaten us into reading or remembering vocabulary. That form of testing would only make the students cram for what they thought might be on the test and not actually getting anything out of the assignment. However, testing is needed to view a child’s growth and knowledge not to threaten into learning. Testing as Goodman said is “For the important purpose of placement…the student should normally seek his own level, where he is challenged and yet capable, rather than trying to get by.” I agree and fond myself remembering that students would only remember what they had just to pass the test or exam.
Testing needs to accomplish finding the students strengths and weaknesses. Testing also needs to be set up in a way that allows students to study without feeling pressured to only study things only to forget them. A LR professor should test you on what they are teaching you. A simple exam on if you are being able to keep up and retain information would probably be a good. Obviously the overall context of a course should be including in testing and should be the main focus of tests. Frivolous pop quizzes or tests on unneeded information should not be allowed. It only encourages students to study what they think might be on a bigger test and forget it soon after.
How important is testing these days in the school systems? Well it would depend on what different type of test you were talking about. In a high school student’s four years they are rigorously put through many different tests; to the point where that is the only thing an average student is focused on. Some examples of tests I have taken in high school are the SSAT’s, SAT’s, PSAT’s, ACT’s, end of course testing, computer testing, competency testing, classroom tests, physical fitness test, and many more that I don’t even want to think about. Some of those tests where just so unnecessary and did nothing but bring anxiety into my life. Yes I was a good student in high school, I paid attention in class, always turned in my homework, a teacher could ask me anything we have covered and I would know the answer, but still when it came to test time I would built up so much anxiety because me as a person do not have strong test taking skills. Maybe I don’t do well on a test but that doesn’t mean I do not know r understand the material. With the SAT’s, I did not do well on them at all, but the reason Lenoir-Rhyne accepted me was because of my GPA and the successful grades I had. I do not agree with Goodman’s views and how he thinks grades are the main focus in high school. What he does not realize is that your grade shows how you have excelled throughout the year, if your average went up or down. But a test is just a onetime deal and is not accurate all the time. The way I interpreted Ravitch’s feelings is that she does believe in testing, but feels it has gotten a little out of hand these days. For intense, the majority of tests these days are multiple choice and she and I both feel like that is just letting the student guess. Multiple choice questions give a student a 25% automatic chance they will get it correct, if it was short and or fill in the blank you would have to know it from your head. I feel your grades should show your overall knowledge in that certain class and tests should accomplish showing how much you truly know about one subject because when taking a test, the student doesn’t have their textbook or friend to help them with the answer. I am not really sure and LR professor’s testing strategies yet just for the simple fact that I am new here and I have not yet experienced a test from college. I hope that since the professors know we got into LR they don’t automatically assume we are prepared for a vigorous and challenging test. I would hope/expect that the first tests given to us are harder than a high school test but at the same time, not as difficult as a college exam. The professors need to gradually prepare us for these huge tests because many of us can understand the material but bombs tests.
As a high school student you take many test. Test are designed to gage your ability on a particular subject. This helps some students but there are students who just dont do well on test because they get so stressed out about them. Like the SAT the environment in which you take the test is so stiff that it makes the test even harder. Even if a student does not do well on all tests it ideally makes the student realize what they need to do differently on the next one to show that they understand the material given. Professors should make it clear with the students about what to expect on tests and how to get prepared for the test. I agree with Ravitch testing is needed I wouoldnt want a doctor to work on me that had not taken any tests to determie how much knowledge he had on being an adequate doctor.
Testing our knowledge regularly during the school year is a good tool to use. Test are used to see who really knows the information or not. It is also a good measuring stick for the teachers because it will show them if the way they are teaching the students are affective or not. Ravitch says "tests should be used to improve education, not ration it." A long time ago they used to have students take an IQ test to see what kind of learning experience(good or bad) they would be placed into. Ravitch also says,"every child should have access to a high-quality education." I believe the same thing along those lines.
The way Goodman says that we can use tests is when the teacher sees fit. I did not really understand what goodman wrote but what I think he was trying to say is that he did not think test should be graded. Anyway, I agree with Ravitch's because I could understand him more.
The test I took in high school were very important. They gave me an idea of how well I was understanding the material. Without tests I could not judge how well I knew what the instructor was telling me. I could think I understand the material, but I’ve thought that before then took a test and have done poorly. Tests are presented so not only the person being tested can judge how well they are understanding but also to show the tester that the one being tested is understanding. Ravitch says that people would like to get things such as a license without testing. She makes the comment that those tests keep those who are inept off the road to protect the rest of us who can pass the test. Testing can be efficient, but sometimes don’t do the person justice. A student may be very intelligent but the way questions on tests are ask they may get that question right, or like Goodman says that a person may not sure of himself or school tired so may do poorly on the exam. Tests at LR are important, to me, because I want to know how well I’m understanding. Tests should be presented though how feel most comfortable. In psychology Prof. Murphy asked the class how the test should be made out and I enjoy that. I like to have multiple choice tests because it narrows my choice. Ravitch says that multiple choice encourages guessing, which is true to some degree. However, I think multiple choice is better because you have an idea of what your looking for. In math classes, I figure out that problem then look at the choices and see if my answer is a choice. If my answer is not a choice then I know to redo it. Testing is a hassle and can be stressful, but without testing I don’t believe anyone could truly know how well they are being educated.
The SAT is a three-hour examination that measures verbal and mathematical reasoning. Aptitude is your capability, or ability to do something. Okay, now let us think back on that lovely day, or ‘month’ I should say. We all remember our days back in high school when our teachers encouraged us to study, study, and study some more for our SATs, don’t we? “You have to do well on the SAT to get into a good college.” One of my teachers had told me. So, no pressure from that statement was taken, because I am a fantastic test-taker! Wrong. I am a terrible test-taker, especially when you time me to take the test. “Don’t worry; there are tons of SAT prep courses, CDs and online studying that you can do for the test.” Get 8 full hours of sleep, and a healthy balanced breakfast and you shall soar! Am I Right?
Now, moving on to that glorious day: SAT day! The classroom thermostat is temped at just below freezing, and the room is cleared of every poster and picture. The seat is a little hard, but after an hour I will be numb, so that won’t be an issue. The classroom begins to fill up with eager students; everyone carefully lying out there sharpened #2 pencils on the edges of their desks. Each student opening the backs of there calculators to ensure their batteries were inserted correctly. Then a lady moves to the front of the room to begin instructing the procedure of the test, and proceeding to remind us of our timing during the test. The test begins. “If k is divisible by 2, 3, and 15, which of the following is also divisible by these numbers?”…Okay, I have officially tuned into the radio station that I was listening to on the way here. I re-read the question. Yea, I should go and get gas after I leave, because I have to be to work at 4:00. I re-read the question again. The instructor clicks her stopwatch, and I resume consciousness. My heart begins to pound through my chest as I reiterate to myself that if I don’t make a good score on this test, I will not be able to get into a good college. Again, I am feeling no pressure.
Long story short, the 3 hours fly by, and I completed about 2/3 of my test. We have all been here one time or another. My point is that there are capable and decently intelligent students that can be terrible test-takers. So, your poorly scored tests reveal you as unable, and incapable of the subject matter as a whole, and possibly even unintelligent. I know that the intended purpose of such tests is to evaluate what the student has absorbed in high school and to ever so cleverly produce twisted questions with 4 of the 5 answers being slightly possible, to test the student’s ability. I agree on some levels. Tests should accomplish assessing what the student has just learned, or what he/she knows in general. Tests should not be timed, due to each student’s personal test-taking ability. Also, students should not be fully judged by there testing alone. Participation in a class/subject, and punctuality with assignment deadlines should play a large role in the definition of the student as a whole. I disagree with Goodman on the lines of abolishing grading. I feel that grading strongly encourages a student to want to do their best and to do what is asked of them. If it wasn’t for grades, Fred who sleeps in Geometry everyday would not have a punishment. Earning an ‘F’ is reason enough to believe the student is careless and should not be allowed the privilege to move forward.
Ravitch notes that, “Good tests should include a mix of essay, problem-solving, short answer, and even some multiple choice questions.” I most definitely agree that that is an extremely effective way to give the student a chance to answer in different ways. She also says that most tests today rely too much on multiple choice questions, leaving room for guessing. I feel that is very true. We all have had class with that kid that sat beside us during a multiple choice test and made a design out of their answer bubbles and ended up with a C.
I think that L-R professors should approach testing students in a well-rounded manner, with multiple types of questions. And, of course, the professors should only test on what was previously taught. That sort of testing should aid in our success in college.
"If one can establish in the student the belief that one is testing not to grade and make invidious comparisons but for his own advantage, the student should normally seek his own level, where he is challenges and yet capable, rather than trying to get by." This statement made by Goodman covers almost all of my views on testing. I believe that there are pros and cons to testing. A good aspect of testing is for students to take placement tests. This is helpful because students can be placed in a class that they are completely capable of getting a good grade in rather than a class that is above their abilities. Also, I agree with Gardener that testing should not be about speed but "background knowledge, seriousness of purpose, and effort." Timed tests may be neccessary in some circumstances but in the majority of cases they are not. As Gardener said some timed tests such as the SAT give some people unfair advantages such as extra time. Why can't everyone have the option to have extra time if they feel it is necessary? I thinking testing should be used to see if a student is where they should be in terms of education and to see if students are making sufficient progress. I think professors or teachers should approach testing in a manner that pushes students to think critically about what they have learned and be able to apply the things they have learned in different situations.
Why should you test? I think that testing students is a great way of knowing how a student is doing in your class. After all you could have a student who doesn't talk as much as other students in your class, but takes in everything going on around him. Although students should interact with other people in the class, and would probably get a better grade on a test, I think there are pros and cons about taking test. I agree with what good man says "For the important purpose of placement". Testing is a great way for a teacher to know where a students at in there class. I also agree with what Ravitch says as " test should be used to improve education, not ration it". Every student can use test to better knowledge them for a final or mid-term. I have used test in the past to determine whether I'm understanding whats being said during class time. I have also used them to study on finals to come. I agree with test to the extent that they help a student determine what they need to do in a class, but not as a way of failing a class. You could be the smartest person in a class in college and still pass the test because of studying. But did you learn all the information you covered?
My high school classes would always ask the teachers why even bother with tests when they know we cheat our way through. Like Mr. Goodman, they said it was to find out what we understood from the course and what we hadn’t quite grasped yet. Of course there were those teachers who said they disagreed with testing. I was able to see their point-of-view, however, I disagree. Their point was that tests, especially the major exams, stress students to where their performance is affected. Therefore, tests do not produce reliable results. I think that exams are most important because who would want their doctor to be someone who could not pass the MCAT or the test which allows them to keep their license? I also agree with Goodman when he states that teachers shouldn’t threaten students with homework because it does not accomplish anything. Threatening students usually leads other things, such as cheating by the student who did not complete the assignment.
In Ravitch’s essay, I found a lot of things I liked. It’s true that no one wants to be tested. However, it is a necessity to help the greater community. As the author pointed out in the second paragraph, tests help protect us from many hazards and dangers. I think it is important for schools to have exams so that the school system can eliminate programs that no longer benefit students, and to know where to place funding that will be of more benefit to students. I’m going to become a teacher and the students need every advantage possible—this goes with his opinion that tests should be used to improve education. My last thought is that colleges should require at least two tests for students in order to graduate since professionals should know their major material. Like accountants are required to pass an exam before they can be licensed professionals (CPA’s). It will be up to them to teach the new comers in later years.
I think it’s implied what I think tests ought to accomplish, in my earlier thoughts, and how they should be tested.
This is late due to the fact that there was no power at my house the night before class……….
Post a Comment