“Hence, the question is to what extent can large-scale assessment represent reform-oriented curriculum and what are the challenges in trying to design such an assessment?” (Suurtamm, 31)
This is a question that I’ve wondered about before, though not in such eloquent language. My wondering sound more like: why are we doing massive EQAO tests that don’t use the same methods that we know from research are great methods for teaching? And what is the value of a test that requires so much teaching time to prepare students for its particular methods? I can see that there are advantages to large-scale testing for certain parties, but I’m not sure what the value to students is. I think this article does a great job of presenting the challenges that face teachers when there are pressures to adopt new teaching methods and at the same time prepare students for a test that does not use any of these methods. Despite the best efforts of the EQAO team to make sure that the test covers a broad range of topics and methods, it has failed to put emphasis on any particular topics as the most important and it fails to recognize new methods of assessment that have been adopted.
While the article by Morgan and Watson, I was very disheartened. Although I agree with almost all of the points that were made, I find it very depressing to realize that my assessment is so arbitrary. I have had many conversations with other teachers who think that my marking is easier because it is either “right or wrong”, which I always disagree with, but this article sheds new light on just how complex marking in math can be. I too had questions about the solution that Steven had. Maybe I would be able to tell more if I had read the entire interviews, but I thought it was disappointing that a few of the teachers didn’t even try to understand the student’s method. I hope that I have not done the same. I can only hope that through the awareness of the problems that exist with providing equitable assessment, that I can make better decisions!
Hi Beth,
ReplyDeleteHaving never been in a school that has done EQAO testing I am not sure what value this has for the students other than the value stipulated by the EQAO:
"* Provide students with clear and timely information on their progress
* Reinforce student successes and identify areas where attention is needed
* Provide information and direction which give students insight to plan for their future
* Demonstrate to students that the knowledge and skills required of them are consistent across the province
* Strengthen students' involvement in continuous learning and improvement" (http://www.eqao.com/AboutEQAO/AccountabilityOutcomes.aspx?Lang=E)
These are certainly great goals, but having never done EQAO testing, I am not sure how much teachers discuss the results with their students - hopefully others in our class could answer this question?
With respect to teachers, I would say that the results could help "help teachers to ascertain students' knowledge and skills, so they may intervene appropriately to foster improvement", but it would have to be the teachers in Grade 10 and beyond, yes? Or are Grade 9 teachers to look at the results and adapt their teaching methods accordingly? How can we be certain that changing our methods would be appropriate with a new group? In the end, I don't think I provided any great insight, but perhaps more confusion?
Let me propose to you another type of testing that is done at the end of the Grade 12 year in some schools - either AP or IB. I believe these tests are used to 'even out the playing field' so to speak - allow universities to fairly equate students who have completed the same test. Are these tests in the end equitable themselves? These could be considered high-stakes tests (in certain areas more than other - for example, in Ontario, students will most likely still receive their Ontario diploma even if they fail to receive their IB diploma), but if all students are in fact writing the same exam, is it more equitable? Can we fairly judge students 'side-by-side' so to speak? The authors that we have read for this session may still believe that these tests are not equitable and in fact, these tests are inequitable because of the high-stakes nature of the tests. Would you agree? Food for thought....(Hope this makes sense.)
I have a feeling I am about to run out of space, but I wanted to address one more thought that you brought to light - the fact that these testings do not assess all aspect of the curriculum or practices, for example investigation practices and Suurtamm et al pointed out. I like to turn this around if I may. If we actually introduce investigations, problem solving activities/practices, etc. into our classroom, are we not preparing our students to be able to tackle problems they may face on these tests? Do these practices actually have to be tested or can we ensure that we provide opportunities to develop these tools/skills that will enable students to go into these large scale assessments with confidence? Again, just food for thought....
In the end, I do not believe these articles have brought anything new to light, but articulated the frustration that teachers share when it comes to ensuring equitable assessment. Like you with respect to what we saw in the Morgan & Watson article, I do hope that I have shown my students that I am receptive to any and all ideas. Maybe in the end these articles are about shaking us out of any complacency, making us more aware of our assessment practices in the classroom and talking/sharing thoughts and concerns.
Thanks for starting the dialogue!
Leslie, I like that you bring up AP or IB testing. I think that's a great comparison that you and I see more often in the independent system. I agree that they are great for making sure that students learned the same basic concepts and for universities to compare the numbers, but they have the same faults as the EQAO. I don't know that much about the questions that are on these exams, but I know that IB school and AP courses teach to the test. That's not always such a bad thing when the test is founded on the right principles and reflect student learning, but these are lofty goals for a test.
ReplyDeleteAnd I love that you turned things around on me! I agree that if we have the right practices in our classroom it will help students on the test, but is that enough to ensure that those practices remain? Teachers sometimes end up teaching to the EQAO tests, in my opinion, far too much, so if students don’t need those specific skills on the test, will teachers keep doing it? Maybe I’m not giving my profession enough credit, but I know its tough when there are pressures to bring grades up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leslie: a full implementation of the Ontario curriculum will prepare students for the test because the test itself is designed to assess students' understanding of the curriculum expectations. There are no secrets to the test.
ReplyDeleteI think the discrepancies come from our interpretations of what the expectations mean and look like, how the expectations manifest into assessment tasks, what mastery looks like etc.
Beth, you asked: "if students don't need those specific skills on the test, will teachers keep doing it?"
I would hope so. Test taking skills are test taking skills, regardless of the context. All students would benefit from them. I know my first year physics mark would have been less disastrous if someone had actually taught me how to decipher multiple choice questions!
Hi Beth,
ReplyDeleteI cannot speak about AP, but I would like to respond with respect to the IB and say that the problem expressed by these authors may also be seen by teachers who teach the IB, e.g. teach to the test. However, that is actually not the philosophy or goal of the IB programme. The IB provides a curriculum and gives a sense of timing of how long to spend on each topic which can correspond roughly to knowing with confidence how many questions may be seen on the exam, but it doesn't dictate how these concepts should be taught. What they do provide is something called a Learner profile, which represents ten attributes that the IB programme fosters after the two year programme; part of this profile includes 'critical thinker', 'inquirer', etc. So I will pose this question to you: can a teacher teaching to the test be able to foster these qualities?
I do share your concern though that if a test is critical, then pressure to make sure that grades say high is tough on teachers and therefore teaching to the test may be seen more often than not.
I have a feeling as Praboda mentioned in her blog that this is a conversation that may keep going in circles as there are no real easy solutions.
I will preface this comment by stating that I have never administered the EQAO test or any large scale assessment to my students, so my thoughts on this subject are just my thoughts, and not based on any real experience.
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered how any large scale assessment can accurately measure a student’s progress and conceptual understanding of math. I wonder this because I also often wonder how any single small scale assessment can accurately measure a student’s progress and conceptual understanding. I can see when I mark a written test that it does not always match what I observe in my students when they work in groups, or when they work individually, or when they write an assignment. I feel that when I put all of these together, I can get a good sense of what each student it capable of. (Of course there is bias in my assessment – I completely agree with Morgan and Watson on this front and like Beth, I do find this disheartening…) This is different from the impression I would get from each task alone. So how can any single large-scale assessment equitably measure the understanding of every student?
LM listed the value of testing stipulated by EQAO. The first two: “provide students with clear and timely information on their progress” and “reinforce student successes and identify areas where attention is needed” are very important goals in helping our students grow and progress in mathematics. However, the article by Morgan and Watson points out that on the EQAO test, there is more importance given to certain topics (though we don’t know if this is intentional or not), even though this importance in not outlined in the ministry guidelines. If this is true, then the test is bias towards students who have a better understanding of these particular topics. As a result, it cannot be an accurate representation of a student’s skills in mathematics and cannot give accurate information about a student’s complete understanding of the topics in the curriculum.
LM, you also asked “If we actually introduce investigations, problem solving activities/practices, etc. into our classroom, are we not preparing our students to be able to tackle problems they may face on these tests?” I agree that we are still preparing our students for the test, and hopefully teachers will continue to teach in this way instead of just teaching skills that are required for the test (though I do agree with Devika’s comment about the importance of teaching test-taking skills). But I worry that students who have not developed the problem solving skills required by the curriculum may also be able to tackle these problems. Our goal is not to design a test that students do well on, our goal is to design a test that can accurately measure whether or not the students are meeting the ministry expectations, and so (though I’m not sure how) the questions should reflect all of the expectations.