There was so much information covered on assessment and testing. It is a pretty important, hot-topic issue this days, and for good reasons. I suppose that we have always needed a way to measure people's progress, and "tests" (in reference to standardized testing) have been an efficient way to go about it. Overall, I do not have major qualms with assessment; I think it can be useful and can be implemented in effective ways to present us with important information about our students. However, when it comes to standardized testing, I am not a big fan of it. Apart from taking the ACT and high-school gateway tests, I had to take a series of Standford Achievement Tests through fourth to eighth grade due to the fact that I was home schooled during that period. I always scored in the 90% and above percentile in English, Spelling, and Reading Comprehension. I cannot remember if I was tested on history, but I believe I was tested on science, in which I had an average ranking, and math. I always did the worst in math, and this was true for the ACT as well. For me, lower scores in weak areas tainted my testing experience.
Part of this thought process is leading up to prevention and good teachers. I had one single, effective teacher who challenged me and catered better to my learning style. I had one terrible teacher who barely taught; the other, while a genius, had trouble relating her concepts into palatable terms. Today, students can choose from a wealth of resources to improve scholastically, and teachers are taught to approach subject matter using a variety of techniques to address each, unique individual. I guess I wish I had more of that tailored learning. My logic follows as such: if I had improved my math skills I would have done better on that portion of the test, boosting my overall performance (and potentially qualifying for more scholarship money). But I am just speculating.
One observation that continues to resonate with me is Aaron's remarks on extrinsic motivation.
As long as we are in a system that promotes a structured learning system, extrinsic motivation will guide our agendas fairly frequently. I still believe there are students, although not the majority, who are naturally intrinsically motivated; they have a strong internal drive and do not require outside motivation to accomplish things. However, does the ten percent extrinsic motivation, like Aaron stated, ruin the foundation of intrinsic motivation? I would like to think that it does not. In an ideal world, we would all be moved by intrinsic forces. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and as long as we live in an imperfect world we will continue to be guided by external forces that may or may not be beyond our control.
Part of this thought process is leading up to prevention and good teachers. I had one single, effective teacher who challenged me and catered better to my learning style. I had one terrible teacher who barely taught; the other, while a genius, had trouble relating her concepts into palatable terms. Today, students can choose from a wealth of resources to improve scholastically, and teachers are taught to approach subject matter using a variety of techniques to address each, unique individual. I guess I wish I had more of that tailored learning. My logic follows as such: if I had improved my math skills I would have done better on that portion of the test, boosting my overall performance (and potentially qualifying for more scholarship money). But I am just speculating.
One observation that continues to resonate with me is Aaron's remarks on extrinsic motivation.
As long as we are in a system that promotes a structured learning system, extrinsic motivation will guide our agendas fairly frequently. I still believe there are students, although not the majority, who are naturally intrinsically motivated; they have a strong internal drive and do not require outside motivation to accomplish things. However, does the ten percent extrinsic motivation, like Aaron stated, ruin the foundation of intrinsic motivation? I would like to think that it does not. In an ideal world, we would all be moved by intrinsic forces. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and as long as we live in an imperfect world we will continue to be guided by external forces that may or may not be beyond our control.
I think you make some good points in this post and one that I would like to challenge you on. Your statement about how standardized tests can influence the learning experience is an important one. The fact that a test score can taint your perception indicates the weight that we have given these assessment in our culture. Instead of being used as a simple learning tool, they have the power to shape how one views education and themselves and how a person is perceived in the eyes of others. Is this a good or bad thing? If it is bad, how can we address this in a positive manner?
ReplyDeleteThe statement that I would like to challenge you on is the one about individuals in an ideal world being driven only by intrinsic forces. It is common to categorize intrinsic as always good and extrinsic as bad. Think more deeply about this. Is it this simple?