>Rol writes,
>>The standardized tests may not be measuring relevant parameters. However,
>>there are no recognized tests (widely accepted) that do measure a)
>>knowledge, b) thinking, c) synthesizing, d) communicating.
And kcby continues,
>Are the tests not available because they are not _possible_? Or because
>those who fund the development of tests do not value these "skills"?
>
>In my experience, what is measured is what is easiest to measure... not
>necessarily what needs to be measured.
All true. Decades in the educational establishment have left me certain
that there's a sort of Gresham's Law operating in testing, with bad
testing driving out good--well, "better" testing. The latter is pretty
rare in academia. (Can't run the final exam through a Scantron
(Scan-Tron?) and spit out a score.)
I'll paste on an excerpt from a yesterday posting on another list about
one of my own approaches to evaluation.
_________________
"I tend to be rather skeptical about measures that attempt to skirt
the subjectivity of judgment that's inevitable when what's being evaluated
is worth evaluatng. I don't like final exams, but when forced to give one
by institutional policy, I often ask a single question at the beginning of
the term, carefully avoid discussing it or any parallel question during
the term, concentrate instead just on just helping the student clarify his
or her model of reality, then give the same question again at the end and
compare.
"Here's a typical question:
"Some scholars believe that the "era of increasing abundance" Americans
have experienced since colonial times has begun to reverse itself. It
will, they think, be replaced by a shrinking economy, increasing scarcity,
and a steadily declining middleclass standard of living.
"Assume they are right. In a series of short, numbered paragraphs,
identify as many as you can of the probable/possible significant
consequences of this change on middleclass patterns of actions, beliefs,
and values."
"I count paragraphs, reward insight, and acknowledge progress from the
first attempt."
"Average number of responses at beginning of term, 3, with quite a few
blank papers turned in. Average at end, 10 to 20, with occasional 40s and
50s."
______________________________
I hate to say it, but it's my view that much of what's being taught,
especially from about age 10 on, simply isn't worth testing. As I've said
before, we teach what we think is important, but we think it's important
merely because it's what we were taught.
The _primary_ objective of general education ought to be to help students
make explicit their implicitly held models of reality. It's the most
direct route to every legitimate educational objective--superior work
performance, cultural literacy, citizenship education, social problem
solving, putting specialized disciplinary knowledge in context, self
understanding--whatever.
Few educators hook into this, however, primarily, I suppose, because such
a thrust is "supradisciplinary" rather than disciplinary,
interdisciplinary, cross disciplinary, transdisciplinary, or some other
variation on the traditional. The establishment is so rigidly structured
along disciplinary lines that alternatives are often literally
unimaginable.
Marion Brady
-- gmbrady@aol.com