I agree with many of the earlier responses. I believe there is a role for standardized testing, but I would be very cautious on drawing from the information related to the results of the testing as my only basis to make a decision if other information is available.
Good question Hulya. Usually standardized tests are validated. However, the success criterion is subject to the fact that these standardized tests are culturally sensitive to the needs of those who apply them. That is the case if bringing such tests from abroad.
Standardized tests have chalked some many successes due to its validation by experts in test, measurement and evaluation in education. Yet, it may not elicit all expected learning outcomes of learners. This is because standardized questions may not reflect the ideals espoused in the education of particular cultures or countries. If this happens, it may fail its objective of giving fair assessment of the successes of learners.
Dear Hulya,
While the jury is still out, we need to be careful while making a judgement. The standardized test are prepared scientifically with rigorous examination of validity and reliability before students are tested. Hence if you are not looking for 100% reliability then you can safely claim these tests to be reliable.
Personally, as an educator, I am not a great fan of standardized tests because I am aware that academic achievement is more than just the performance measured through a standardized tests. Authentic assessment which are progressive in nature are more likely to depict actual learning.
You also need to define 'success criterion' before jumping to any conclusion.
Dear Subhi
You touched on a very sensitive competence that standardized tests do not provide, that is the training to think critically and the power of analytics. And the training is tied to the process of preparation of students which is also sensitive to cultural values governing the entity providing the teaching and training.
I totally agree with Brother Dickson and Dr Bazlamit. Standard test is not a good standpoint to successfully assess students. This article gives a detailed narration of standard test: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/claire-klodell/standardized-tests_b_5448020.html
@Kay Cheng Soh: For example, in the assessment of language profiency, writing/reading/speaking or math skills, etc.
Hi Hulya,
As a learner who did not do well on most exams, including standardized tests, I believe they have some merit, however, being successful academically cannot be measured associated with standardized tests. Having math anxiety and a mental block in terms of learning, I always did poorly on standardized tests because I was unable to learn algebra and any higher math courses that could appear on these types of tests. I was not prepared to take those tests although they were required for secondary education. I continued to struggle in college attempting algebra and received a BA because math was not a requirement. Today, I am working (successfully) on my PhD and do not believe those poor results on standardized tests hindered my ability to succeed in college or graduate school. Thank you.
John
Dear @John Downing,
Many thanks for your sincerity! You made me feel more confident.
I have found success using standardized tests. That being said, my program uses a holistic approach using other information for remedial placement for English. For example, an initial placement is made using an in-house rubric based on the English grades from high school. Another example is we established baselines using standardized tests by administering pre and posts tests to create a triage of information for placement. A test alone does not necessarily show the whole picture of the capabilities of our students.
Hi. You may wish to read up on cultural validity. There are foreign psychological tests in the Philippines we used after setting up the norms the group. Better yet, make a test and gather data from people there and you may use the test someday for those people with somewhat similar cultural background and demographics.
Standardized tests of language and mathematics have high correlations with school-based or teacher-made tests for the two subjects. Thus, they are reasonably trustworthy in predicting future performance in the two subjects and related ones.
However, students' performance on tests (both standardized and otherwise) is influenced by factors other than the cognitive skills or knowledge they test and so they can be exceptions. John could well be a case in point; we in Singapore also have a student who did not do well in public exams (a form of standardized tests) but doing PhD in London U! But, we have to acknowledge that such as exceptional and not to be expected as normal happenings. It takes more than cognitive abilities to do well in a PhD program and, the particular program may not even require mathematical concepts, say, literature or management.
I would say, trust them but with due caution.
My not very short answer is no, for many, many reasons. Since there is no such thing as a standardized child, as Gerald Bracey said many years ago, there is no such thing as a standardized test. The idea that everyone should know the same things about the same things is an absurd notion that violates what we know about human development, about how and why people learn, and about helping students find meaning in their lives. Why are we giving standardized tests, how do they help move the learner towards becoming the person and learner they hope to be, and how do they serve to help guide education. They don't. They make a great deal of money for testing companies, they provide politicians with easy talking points, they help stack the deck for those who want to destroy public education in favor of privatization, and they help maintain a top down system of fear and control.
A standardized test is merely a standard measure like a standard yardstick. It does not dictate that everyone must learn the same things in the same ways. It just provides a common (standardized) "standard" to enable comparison among students. The undesirable effects are due to improper uses of the information (score) and are ill side-effect. We don't throw away a knife simply because it cuts a finger when we are peeling an apple.
I agree with Norman, standardized tests have their uses as an indicator of competence or potential academic achievement. However, they are but one factor in the overall picture of the potential of the student. Frankly, some people with high intelligence do not test well on standardized tests. The overall picture should include past academic performance, work experience and other factors such as an oral exam.
Agree with the above comments.
I think it'd be better if you could define the success criteria first, because standardised tests are able to provide a certain level of indication on student competence, but if you are examining for things such as communication, teamwork or creativity, these tests would not be as useful. On the other hand. If you are examining for content knowledge, I would say standardised tests would have some level of merit to it. However, I too agree that standardised tests may not be the most fair way of judging student knowledge as well. Some students may have the content knowledge, but may be weaker in language, thus affecting their ability to answer the questions to what is expected.
Hope it helps!
Success w.r.t. students is providing students with the promised overall program competencies as well as the different courses learning outcomes.
So, selection of tests (standardized or not) is based on a well studied exercise whereby a competence is selected which translates into learning outcomes which translates into a specific set of subjects needing testing and measurement. If the standardized tests help in achieving specific part of the exercise, these are used.
Is it possible to standardize learning? I mean, really! Learning is a highly personalized experience. A group of students may cover the same syllabus, do the same exercises, read the same material, but the learning will be different for each one. I agree that standardization is possible in many areas such as technology, but when it comes to learning no two students learn the same things at the same pace. What is called "learning outcomes" are desirable results, often times minimal, or enough to pass. To use standardized test as a measure for success would not render exact results and, although many institutions used them as criteria to see how well they are doing over time, I doubt the results since each batch of students is different to each other, and the cumulative results do not represent the same results.
This is an interesting question. Standardized tests do say something, but not everything. I think related to this, I had an interesting problem with using multiple choice tests in a course of 80 students for which I would be interested in hearing some comments and feelings.
Here is the circumstance from which I interpret that I cannot motivate students to study as deeply for multiple choice as more free- response questions.
I compared performance on identical multiple choice exams, where the only difference was that they were to choose to respond to 2 of three "essay questions." When asked what the essays would be about, I described the theme of each of the 3 chapters. They thanked me as if I had given away the store! The essay question group performed on average 12 to 15% better on the multiple choice!
This, in spite of the fact that the "essay" class was taught in the term which the course was predictably populated by students who did most poorly because they were the most frightened and intimidated by science (the subject of the course).
Do you think that performance on standardized tests is a reliable success criterion?
Definitely not, I stick to the work of Vigotsky, L.S.
Differentiated character of teaching
Ordered transit from the current development zone to the next development zone
https://www.google.com.cu/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8xveGss7ZAhUKw1kKHbHrCI8QFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffile.PostFileLoader.html%3Fid%3D5436a424d11b8b007e8b4585%26assetKey%3DAS%253A272119542288390%25401441889762878&usg=AOvVaw20B9rwhUPje406XGW4_IDP
I agree with many of the earlier responses. I believe there is a role for standardized testing, but I would be very cautious on drawing from the information related to the results of the testing as my only basis to make a decision if other information is available.
I don't think so. Check multiple intelligences theory and assessment
.
Dear Avci.
The standardized tests do not express student success, in fact it expresses the numerical bases for the quantification of results and the consequent constitution of rankings. In this sense, high-scale evaluation is not a reliable criterion. Even if the student marks the right option, how can he evaluate the competences and attitudes of this student? These same skills and attitudes correspond to an essential need for their professional training.
I don't have much faith in standardized tests. I've seen students who did poorly as undergrad perform well in graduate school and have successful careers. I've seen students with low standardized test scores complete graduate degrees, including doctorates. Conversely, I've seen students who were among the top percentages of their classes do poorly in grad school and have trouble within work settings. Similarly, I've seen students with high test scores (GRE, GMAT, etc.) have trouble completing graduate degrees. Standardized tests do not show one's attitude, effort, maturity, desire to excel, and seasoning/experiences that may well translate into academic and career successes later in life. In a nutshell, stanadardized test scores are nothing more than a measure of how well someone takes the test . . .
Dear @Daniel Doss: Thanks a lot for detailing your comment with tangible examples which have appeased my hunger for knowledge on the query.
My conclusion is that well-written and well-tested standardized tests statistically can say something meaningful about a population. But they have limitations. They are not so helpful in evaluating individuals.
As a pattern for judging value of standardized testing, let me outline the research pattern of the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington. (A second hand account, by memory.) They use this in developing an approach to address a specific conceptual misconception.
After general observations of difficulties in class, they start by interviewing students, eliciting their beliefs and recording them. They then look for patterns and develop a hypothesis about what the exact misconception is. Further interviews may follow, I think.
If the hypothesis is holding, they develop strategies for addressing the misconception. Principally this is to firmly but respectfully help students confront the fact that their idea doesn't work by their own observations --- while equipping them with a path to the idea which does work. By observation rather than by authority. They apply the strategies to a new set of students and interview again to see what is working. Eventually they assess with free-response questions.
I overheard them once say that their results in assessing the ideas addressed in the multiple choice Force Concept Inventory(FCI) are consistent with studies done with the FCI after accounting for false positive responses on the FCI. --That is, they have identified mistaken beliefs which result in correct answers for the wrong reasons on the FCI.
My conclusion is that well-written and well-tested standardized tests statistically can say something meaningful about a population. But they have limitations. They are not so helpful in evaluating individuals.
Free response, or better yet, interviews are best for evaluating individuals.
I agree with colleague Ryan and I add that It is necessary to appeal to the integral psychopedagogical diagnosis.
historical school development index
yes standardized test is validated by other means such as observation. thanks Ryan
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning