There's been a great bit of discussion across the country regarding the type of test, or tests, that will be used to measure student progress or achievement on the Common Core State Standards. After having come back into a school district as a superintendent, I have been privy to many of these conversations. Most interesting has been discussion of the use of a commonly used aptitude assessment utilized by high school students wanting to go to college as the end of year state assessment for Common Core Standards. The problem with this type of an assessment is it is an aptitude test. There are marked differences between aptitude and achievement tests. Aptitude tests date back to the early 1900s as the US was preparing to enter World War I. These assessments were utilized to determine who would be the best candidates for officer training school. These tests were used to predict the likelihood of success of various candidates in such type of training. Today, such tests are used to predict the likely college freshman grades for incoming high school students in college courses. So for all intensive purposes, aptitude tests are designed to predict future performance.
The problem arises in the fact that these aptitudes that are measured by such exams may not necessarily be a result of the instruction that students have received in school. Some of these aptitudes may even be inherited (e.g., visual-spatial, etc.)
On the other hand, we have what are called achievement tests. These assessments were developed after aptitude tests primarily to make a determination about what a student has learned. Thus, these types of assessments have long been identified as a more suitable way to get at what a student has learned from schooling. So one predicts future performance, and the other one measures what has been learned. The problem with using an aptitude test to measure what a student has learned is that this causes one to use such a test outside of the purpose for which it was developed. This can cause issues with the reliability and the validity of the inferences drawn from the results. Since even some achievement tests have a hard time with instructional sensitivity, it only makes sense that aptitude tests certainly wouldn't pass the muster. That is, a teacher may do a bang up job teaching the standards students are held accountable to in regard to the curriculum only to have that bang up teaching NOT show up on improvements on such tests used outside of their purpose.
We can certainly design achievement tests that will tell us whether or not students have been well taught or not, or whether or not they have learned. The problem is not any old test will do. Recognizing the fact that "one use does not fit all" in regard to tests will help us to get at assessing what students have learned more accuratly.
In addition, tying leadership and teacher evaluations to such assessments lies completely outside the realm of defensible educational psychometry.
So remember, when it comes to measuring achievement, let's make sure we use an achievement test. When we want to predict future performance, an aptitude test may be more fit for the task. Regardless, using an assessment outside of the purpose for which it was developed will always cause problems.
What are your thoughts?
The problem arises in the fact that these aptitudes that are measured by such exams may not necessarily be a result of the instruction that students have received in school. Some of these aptitudes may even be inherited (e.g., visual-spatial, etc.)
On the other hand, we have what are called achievement tests. These assessments were developed after aptitude tests primarily to make a determination about what a student has learned. Thus, these types of assessments have long been identified as a more suitable way to get at what a student has learned from schooling. So one predicts future performance, and the other one measures what has been learned. The problem with using an aptitude test to measure what a student has learned is that this causes one to use such a test outside of the purpose for which it was developed. This can cause issues with the reliability and the validity of the inferences drawn from the results. Since even some achievement tests have a hard time with instructional sensitivity, it only makes sense that aptitude tests certainly wouldn't pass the muster. That is, a teacher may do a bang up job teaching the standards students are held accountable to in regard to the curriculum only to have that bang up teaching NOT show up on improvements on such tests used outside of their purpose.
We can certainly design achievement tests that will tell us whether or not students have been well taught or not, or whether or not they have learned. The problem is not any old test will do. Recognizing the fact that "one use does not fit all" in regard to tests will help us to get at assessing what students have learned more accuratly.
In addition, tying leadership and teacher evaluations to such assessments lies completely outside the realm of defensible educational psychometry.
So remember, when it comes to measuring achievement, let's make sure we use an achievement test. When we want to predict future performance, an aptitude test may be more fit for the task. Regardless, using an assessment outside of the purpose for which it was developed will always cause problems.
What are your thoughts?
RSS Feed
