Test Subversion 201
It’s not about being radical, and it’s not about subverting for the sake of subverting. It’s about genuine care and concern about learning.
Tests are not the things that are wrong in our classrooms, it’s how we use them. It’s how we give and use the tests that requires thought and subversion.
"It’s the way testing is carried out that is the problem, not testing itself. You have to give feedback on performance to learners - how can you do that without some way of assessing what their performance is?"(Testing…testing…one two three.English360 blog)
And what is the purpose of that feedback? Is it to generate a number for a report? Is it just something teachers and students have to do because they’re in school? Or is testing a way to provide feedback? A catalyst for reflection, review, discovery, and redelivery (if you’re a teacher.)
Sadly, my test taking career has largely been something I’ve had to do because I’m in school. I rarely recall revisiting material that was not "passed with success" on a test. The band just played on, with or without you. My test taking career reminds me of Disney’s Sport Goofy as he does the obstacle run. He clears the first few hurdles with no problem, but then things start to go wrong. Instead of clearning the hurdle, he starts to collect them. He jumps, but not quite high enough. The hurdle gets stuck around his leg. Goofy starts to slow, but somehow manages to move forward. He comes to the next hurdle, and again doesn’t manage to jump high enough. Another hurdle rolls up his leg and gets stuck around his waist. He stumbles forward and ends up crashing through the next hurdles, dragging them along with him as he moves along toward the finish line.
Ok, so I can’t believe I’m using Goofy in this discussion, but the point of this post is hit home rather well with his example. If we’re not thinking about HOW we give tests, we’re turning our students into Goofys. Are tests just something they have to jump over and pass, or are they reflective tools - for both students and teachers?
Do we slow down after a test (hurdle) to see if content being tested was actually understood by our students? Do we, as teachers, take time to redeliver material that was not taken on by students? Or are we guilty of marching ever forward in our dedication to cover the year’s required content? The material may get covered, but if we look back will we see our students jumping high and easy, or will we see them lost in a failed hurdle?
Testing is not only about the student. It’s also a measure of how well we delivered and worked the content in class. When a test is given, we should mark ourselves as well as our students. Maybe the way I delivered or worked through the material didn’t connect properly with my audience?
This morning I did something I’ve never done before with my students and their test. (See previous post.) I spent a few hours last night marking them, but from a very different perspective. Inspired by James’ The Demise of the Red Pen and Konrad Glogowski, I hauled out my trusty pencil and set to marking. But not marking to asign a grade, it was marking to set the stage for meaningful feedback.
James asks: "What if we invested in walking through the text instead of skimming from an ‘objective’ distance?"("The Demise of the Red Pen" ) Indeed. What if? What if, and WHY NOT?
Today’s class was a walk-through. We slowed down. The test showed some pretty important holes, and instead of just passing out their grade and moving forward with what was next, I tossed the book, and handed back their tests without their grades.
James’ recent post Real Teaching Means Being Quiet (Sometimes)… really left me with a lot to think about.
"After walking through constructing a post, I have my students mark each other’s blog entries using the same rubric I will use tomorrow. As I walk around the room I find myself in a strange situation…overhearing students talking through their peer’s post and adding suggestions and or compliments I realize that I have nothing to do.
They are teaching each other." (Real Teaching Means Being Quiet (Sometimes)…)
Students teaching themselves…What a thought. I don’t always have to be the "great answer man." In fact, I know I’m not that. But isn’t it funny how tempting it is to just give students the answer? So today and last night, after reflecting on these guys’ posts, I decided to throw out the conventional one sidedness of test taking. I decided to take my own advice and value the journey just as much as the end product.
I returned their tests without a final grade, and paired them up to work on revisiting their incorrect answers together. I paired my stronger students with weaker ones, and the result was magic.
Instead of me broadcasting the answers, my students helped each other discover the correct ones. I just floated around, and dropped in to offer advice and suggestions, but never the complete answer. I heard and saw amazing things: A "strong" student correctly, efficiently, and clearly explaining why a sentence structure wasn’t quite right to a "weaker" student. Then, not five minutes later, the "weaker" student became the teacher, and she correctly, efficiently, and clearly explained why the "stronger" student had gotten one of his passive sentences wrong.
It really was a magic moment. But it was magic for all of us. I think I learned just as much, if not more, than my students did from the exercise.
Testing is an important tool in the classroom. HOW we test is what we really need to think about. A test should not just be about a final grade, it should be the little kid in the back seat of your car asking you constantly "are we there yet?" Tests should draw out reflection from the one who administers it: Did we cover this material in a way that met my student’s needs? Are we just going to march onwards after I hand out the final mark? Am I going to make the choice of placing value on learning from mistakes?
Do my tests invite students to reflect on their own understanding of the material? Am I inviting them to dive deeper if need be?
Tests should be 100% all over that.
Subvert the marching band test and the condition of Goofy. Slow down and make sure you’re all there. Have you lost people along the way? Is someone getting stuck under a hurdle?
Test Subversion 201: How does everyone feel about that?
Hey Man,
this is bang on. The Goofy analogy smacks you up side the head with relevance…I wonder about this myself. Am I just pushing students along…hurry up, let’s go on to the next thing…with no regard for whether or not they have cleared the hurdle?
Unfortunately, I am wondering how much time the system allows for us to go back and revisit things…how much time is allowed for re-teaching, re-learning, working on mastery instead of limping through?
With courses that have gov. exams on a set date at the end of the course…it seems not much time is allowed for such things.
This is not good.
This is not good at all.
Thanks for your thoughts on this…
Comment by james matthew — March 7, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Hey James,
Thanks for your feedback. You know, my head still hurts from the “relevance smack” it got from Goofy. Sometimes the most simple things can do that eh?
You know, on some levels I feel your pain on being stuck between slowing down, and being pulled along by the system. On the other hand, I think about where you’re at, and the things you have to deal with, and I kinda feel like I’m just sorta play teaching - that the real stuff is being done by you and your peers, that that is where the real pressure is. (If that makes any sense.)
In my world, I can sorta be a little more of a risk taker. I can toss aside books. I can bend the rules, and “fight the powers” that be.
There’s heat.There’s flack, but it’s on a much umm…tamer level than what you have to play with.
I guess what I aim to say here is that…you seem to be between a rock and and a hardplace. But if you think it through…as I think you’ve been doing lately, is this sorta thing really ethical? Is it ok to move on if someone is left behind?
I think people like Richardson and Warlick have been nailing away at deeper, not wider curriculums. Amen. Deeper. Not wider. And let deeper also allow for slower.
I drive back to conversation around Journey vs. Destination II:
“via Christopher D. Sessums: A Change Agent Mantra:
My aim is to agitate and disturb people.
I’m not selling bread, I’m selling yeast.
-Miguel de Unamuno, writer and philosopher (1864-1936)
The next one via David Warlick over at 2 Cents Worth:
“Toyota realized that the real creative potential was on the plant floor. The creativity that brought Toyota out was the workers. The real source of innovation is in the trenches. (Whoa! Teachers are where the innovation is. How do we tap into that. How do we encourage, value, and share the creativity of the classroom. How about students. How do we tap into the creativity of our students to affect education?)”
Yet another role to tack onto our growing list: Teachers as innovators and subversion facilitators.
Perhaps the passionate teacher will always be locked in battle with the hoops. It’s sadly like a dualism: on one hand you advocate for true student centered learning environments, but on the other hand you are required to employ the hoops. Will the day ever arrive where the rules (and sometimes they are well meaning) are in harmony with the student and self directed, life long learning?”
If Warlick is right, the change is us.
Comment by Aaron Nelson — March 7, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Very good post to reflect on!! the question is: what are you testing when you test? or better, how are you testing what you want to test?
Teachers should remember students’times and how did they feel seeing a test full of red marks! Instead of thinking of what they did wrong, students give it apart, just because what matters is ‘the final grade’.
Think: what if teachers just underline where something is not correct, or mark where a word is missing, and make the students discover what is wrong?
Surely you’ll make they think, possibly they will give the correct answer and best of all they will remember better.
Aaron, what you did with your students is what Vigotsky talked about!:’strong students help weaker ones’ that is an always helpfull tool, besides sometimes they understand better a pair than you …
James says that the system doesn’t provide enough time, and is right but I guess that in a way the system is you: the important thing is the journey and there you are the one who makes the difference.
Comment by Mercedes — March 8, 2006 @ 5:22 am
Aaron,
I’ve read some of your postings and many of your comments on Palimpsest Redux, but this is my first comment left for you.
I heartily agree with the importance of giving valuable formative and ongoing feedback after tests. But, like James, my first impluse is to ask whether or not there is enough time to really go back and work on the holes which appear after tests.
I’m currently interning in the BC elementary system and have been talking with my sponsor teacher (a seasoned and skilled veteran) about this issue - several considerations unique to elementary ed come up: there are no government exams for these grades (4 and 7 do have standardized testing, but not for the purpose of passing or failing students) so that pressure is not there, but students are often absent and have trouble keeping up as it is, also the skill and knowledge diversity in the average classroom is 5 grade levels, and many students are on adapted programs. These situations and others almost make teaching student specific.
When I plan, I have to have extensions and adaptations for my students with exceptionalities. I have to think about each individual student’s abilities and plan according. Sometimes it feels like I am planning 4 or 5 different lessons just so that I don’t “leave anyone behind” or “dumbdown the genius”.
The point I’m trying to make is that the elementary classroom (I’m teaching g.6) is usually a diverse community of students with a wide disparity of knowledge and skill levels.
When thinking about how to make assessment more valuable for learning, I envision a model in which you take more time teaching concepts and skills the first time though with ongoing and frequenty assessment and daily review. Tests are kept to a minimum, while performance and activity products become the main focus of grading and feedback. Not only does this model seem more practical in relation to the skills necessary in the adult working world, but student stress level decreases and performance increases because the test doesn’t recieve so much emphasis and weight.
If a “unit ending” test reveals a whole lot of holes in student understanding and capabilities, then perhaps a lesson or two should be taken up trying to mend those holes. But, moreso, I think the teacher needs to reflect upon their own method: “How is it that I taught a four week unit on ecosystems and I didn’t know that Jonny would fail this test?” Perhaps the test is so un-authentic that the students were not able to show what they learned, or perhaps the teacher should have picked up on this problem 3 weeks ago and started adapting their lessons at that time, mending the holes as they began to form.
I’m just new in the system, so I lack experience and wisdom and probably contain too much idealism, but I also have not gotten stuck into old grooves yet. I’m currently wondering about the possibility of an g.6 classroom without tests, only small quizzes. What would a class be without tests?
Thanks for the thoughts and I’ll have to go back and read some of your older postings.
- Mark
Comment by Mark — March 9, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Mercedes
Thanks for your input - You should think about starting a blog! I know you’d have great things to talk about.
I appreciate you pointing out that what I did with the weak and strong students was done by Vigotsky. I’ll try to learn more about his methods.
“The system is you.”
I agree, and I disagree. I agree in that teachers are, in many ways, the gatekeepers of their classrooms. They have the power, to a certain extent, to build and manage the classroom environment. I like the idea of you being the change. That’s vital live out no matter what you do.
If your classroom environment sucks, how much of a role did you play in creating its suckiness? What can you do to change that? What can you do with assessment and testing? Are you able to change things in some way if they are not working well? We always need to be asking ourselves that.
Where I disagree with you is around the whole imposed from outside aspect to the classroom. Perhaps in ESL we don’t have to deal with too much of that, but folks who work in public schools often have to deal with tough government guidelines, benchmarks, standardized testing etc. You have little to no control over those, but they have great power in the classroom.
A little further thinking…I really liked Warlick’s thought that teachers have a great deal of innovative power. I wonder what would happen if teachers started to work closely together to challange some of the curriculum and high pressure standards tests.
Perhaps I ramble.
Comment by Aaron Nelson — March 10, 2006 @ 9:01 am
Mark,
I really appreciated your comments Mark. Like Mercedes, I wonder where your blog is
man! I’ve read your comments on James’ blog, and I think you have many valuable things to say and contribute. Do you have one? If you do…pass it on to me, I would be very interested in following it.
Time. Is there enough to go back and fill in the holes? That’s a great question. A tough one. The realistic side of me, the side which tries to follow rules, says “no stinkin way we have time to fill in holes.”
I’m not stuck under the same pressures that you, James, and many others face in their classrooms. (I know in your post you mentioned that elementary pressures are different) I don’t have government requirements to fulfill. I don’t have high stakes standardized testing to dish out. I don’t have it, but I know many teachers live under such things.
It is with this limited understanding of your world, that I also have to ask, and would be asking myself if I found myself in your shoes, “Is all this high speed, little time for hole filling, good teaching/learning practice?”
I wonder where the problem is. If there is no time for hole filling, is that the student’s fault? Or is that the “too wide” curriculum’s fault? Should the student and teacher bend around the curriculum, or should the curriculum be bent around the student?
What I mean by that is this: If we try to stuff our students through the curriculum we have to cover, and have the main driving force of our work being to meet requirements at all costs (No benchmark, standard, or theme left behind) then I think we’re providing a huge disservice to our students.
Students getting left behind…now that’s something to fret about. It SHOULD be seen like this don’t you think? The curriculum should bend…or adapt…to the student. If there needs to be a slow down for hole filling, the curriculum should allow for it. Sadly, at least when I was in school, there was no such thing. The great marching band always played on. With our without you.
I liked your idea around frequent review and assessment. I think Cleve over at the English 360 blog, has a similar idea:”[…]”tests” that are so frequent that they cease to be thought of as tests. This gives everyone great feedback and improves performance as well as metacognitive practice.” (Cleve, 2006)
I think this concept of frequent review is vital, and reduces the need for testing. Constant concept recycling.
I also liked your thoughts around teachers needing to be aware of what is happening DURING their units - like who is following, and who is falling off? If you see someone slipping, that’s when you need to make rapid adjustments. Just in time fixes to how you’re delivering and doing your lessons. Totally agree with you there. Why wait for a test to tell you what you’re already seeing?
The classroom without tests. Well, sure! Assessment is needed, but like you say: there is more than one way to see how your people are doing right? What about building meaningful products which reflect the concepts you’re teaching? How can they show what they know?
Great things to think about Mark. I hope read more from you.
As James says, welcome to the conversation.
Comment by Aaron Nelson — March 10, 2006 @ 9:41 am