Yes,
I have some thoughts on the topic, informed by some knowledge and
experience. My first experience with Smarter Balanced was at a local
school where I worked last year. This school was one of just a few
given the chance to test the test. The students had already done
their MEAP testing. And there was NWEA testing. A normal person would
think that would probably be about enough testing, right? Enter
Smarter Balanced.
“Smarter
Balance is coming next year,' we were told. (Although maybe it's
not...)
But
while SB was still the future back in May we gave it to the kids at
my school. “You are lucky to get a chance to try this. Not many
schools get to test it. So you will have an advantage when you take
it for real next year, since you'll be used to it,” the students
were told. What goes through students' heads at any given time? I'm
sure I cannot say. But I bet more than a few were thinking, “it
doesn't count? I'm not going to take it seriously.”
The
day of the test was hot. The testing room was hot. There was lots of
confusion about the codes to get the students signed in. It took over
half an hour before the last student was finally testing. It was a
reading test. I walked the room, trying to keep students on task.
Some were on task, some were not. No different than any other days.
The test made no accommodation for students with special needs. Staff
is not allowed to read for those kids for reading tests, so there was
not much I could do for those students, other than encourage them to
keep at it and try to finish.
The
test itself seemed to test scrolling as much as it measured reading
comprehension. A research article I read recently, Mangen, et al
(2013), about the effects on reading comprehension of paper versus
computer screen, informs my thinking about testing, especially
reading testing, on a screen. I like the article because it confirms
my bias against reading on a computer. Yes, I am biased, and I hate
reading on computer. A lovely study would be to have half take the
test on the computer and half on paper and see who did better.
So
I am skeptical. I doubt that standardized testing helps kids learn. I
lament the instructional time lost to administer a third standardized
test in the same year. I wish the authorities could make up their
minds about which core—common, uncommon, or otherwise—they want,
and which test. And I am not impressed with an entirely computerized
test. What makes it so special?
Mangen,
A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts
on paper versus
computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension.
International Journal of Educational
Research, 58, 61-68
No comments:
Post a Comment