Sheriff Gbadamosi, PharmD
PGY-1 Pharmacy Resident
Suburban Hospital
If there is one that unites all students across the United States and the world it is the requirement for each one to undergo some sort of standardized testing through their educational careers. Standardized testing is used all over the world for various purposes too, whether for entrance into a school or program, to test knowledge on certain class matter, or more recently for myself and colleagues for licensure. The drive for more standardized testing stems back to even the 1980s where there was a wave of political interest looking to establish national educational standards and tests. Experts say that the integration of standards and assessments really was completed in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002.1 This act tied funding from the federal government to state schools with the requirement that states administer certain standardized tests to students in grades 3 through 8 and also in high school; resulting in even more standardized testing than what was previously conducted in state schools. This law additionally allowed state schools to set their own bars for success but imposed consequences for any schools that failed to show yearly progress. Through this act and other advancements in standardized testing, it has become the mainstay of measuring a student’s aptitude through the advent of exams such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the American College Testing (ACT). While standardized testing is definitely the mainstay of assessment for most academic indications the discussion as to the overall effectiveness and even fairness is one that needs to be had.
Just how effective is standardized testing? There are arguments both for and against it. On one hand standardized testing is perhaps the most objective and nonbiased means of measuring student achievement. This concept is very important as we certainly live in a society where the need for objective measurement of aptitude are needed with hundreds of candidates often vying for just a few spots for certain things. However, studies have shown that after the NCLB which resulted in an increase in standardized testing around the U.S, that the U.S had fallen from 18th place on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place by 2009 with a similar drop in science.2 Whether this effect was seen in part to a worsening state of learning and education in the U.S or other countries simply getting better is unclear. On the other hand a 100 year analysis of testing done by a testing scholar found that 93% of those studies showed standardized testing had a positive effect on student achievement.3
Another argument against standardized testing in the U.S is that exams are sometimes geared towards primarily English speakers and can be biased against students in whom English is not their primary language. This may result in otherwise completely capable student erroneously be classified as subpar. Overall, there are many arguments as to the positive and negative implications for standardized testing which educators should be aware of and take into account when considering student evaluations.
Standardized testing is highly applicable to the teaching certificate as we have had the opportunity to learn about various teaching styles and the different types of learners. Also, administration of tests is something that every teacher must do at some point in their class. Thankfully, most teachers that I feel I have dealt with understand that sometimes the test grade isn’t everything but is necessary to at least measure certain academic milestones and most certainly weed out students who are truly subpar. On the other hand, teachers mustn’t neglect the fact that a highs scoring student should be rewarded for their hard work as well. Although a lot of emphasis is often placed on the student when it comes to the results sometimes results can be an invaluable tool for an educator to adjust their style of teaching to one that is more applicable to students doing better on the test. This can be a double edged sword as then teachers run the risk of “teaching to the test” which teachers should be careful of as students at that point will simply be learning how to take an exam rather than actually learning the concepts for their own edification.
Perhaps more anecdotally I have come to realize that oftentimes standardized testing does not often tell the entire story of a person’s aptitude for a certain subject or practice. As a pharmacy resident and clinical pharmacist when I look at my fellow colleagues some of which achieved the highest test grades during our didactic schooling have not made out to be the best pharmacists. I think this notion can spread to all other areas of medicine and other careers. Despite this I am not saying that standardized testing should be done away with it as the necessity to assess a student (especially one in a high-stakes profession such as healthcare) is certainly required to assure understand of key concepts. However, I do believe society should make more space for assessment of other aspects of student education. One thing I do believe in is assessment of candidates through things such as community service, letters of recommendation, intent letters, and their involvement in organizations.
I think when evaluating one’s aptitude as a student that it requires a global assessment of the student as a whole. All things considered, as a future educator I realize that standardized testing while it is important for objectively measuring student aptitude sometimes it doesn’t always tell the full story. I look forward to being able to assess my students on both a personal but also academic level.
References
1. Standards & Testing [Internet]. Education Writers Association. 2013 [cited 2018Nov10]. Available from: https://www.ewa.org/standards-testing
2. Richard Phelps, PhD, "Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Educational Testing Programs,” www.education-consumers.com, Feb. 2002
3. Richard P. Phelps, "The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910–2010,” Nonpartisan Education Review, Apr. 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment