A Dialog with My Brain
It seems it's that time of the year again where students are taking their first semester's final exams. The tension is enough to erupt a volcano, and admidst the havoc of cramming, an idea came to me. It was an idea that has often haunted me, particularly during test time, but this time it's back with valid points. The conversation between my brain and I go as follows:
- Brain: "Arrghh, why are we doing this?"
- Steven: "huh?"
- Brain: "Why are you spending endless hours looking at papers and computer screens in the hopes of absorbing some information that you might not need for an exam given by another person?"
- Steven: "I kinda need to do this, I might not remember something for the test and --"
- Brain: "You don't get it! Why do you have to take a test at all? You're given a piece of paper, everyone in the class is, and you're expected to answer the questions on the sheet. The results are supposed to reflect how well you know the information--"
- Steven: "Yea, that's kinda how it works. It's always been that way."
- Brain: "Just because it always has been, means it's correct. You're tested on by a standard. Obviously this is fundamentally incorrect. Look around you - is any one person here the same as you physically? Emotionally? Mentally? Spiritually? No. Even if you were to have a twin, they would not be the same as you. Everyone is different, simply because of the massive amounts of variables that exist during the fetal developement process...my point? If everyone was all the same, then I would understand that a standardized test--one that is the same for everyone--would be necessary to test to see if one is operating a sub-"standard" level. Yet, because everyone is different, there is no strict standard."
- Steven: "yea, yea, but one can argue that there is a general standard margin of excellence where one should be if they are studying and keeping a good work ethic."
- B: "Steven, this far deeper than that. Yes, one can be tested on this general system that sets a margins of excellence based on how many points are recieved on a test, but it's not good enough! Do you know why test are standardized, at least on at the classroom level?"
- S: "No."
- B: "Remember, the goal is to measure one's knowlege and excellence, compared to that of a set margin. In other words, get all the answers right, you get a 100. Get some right, but not all, your grade is lowered accordingly. Test are standardized in a weak attempt to keep them fair and just. But what is fair is not always just."
- S: "I don't follow..."
- B: "Let me give you an example...soon, you'll be taking that mathematics final exam--"
- S: "uhhgg, don't remind me."
- B: "Anyways, yes, you've been studying like crazy but math isn't really your favorite topic. You understand the basic principles, but when you try to put into practice the more complex concepts, you utterly do not understand -- it shows on your previous quizes."
- S: "Your point?!"
- B: "Do you believe you are a disadvantage compared to, let's say, the economics major that sits next to you? Or to any individual that loves computing interest rates? I believe you are. For them, the work is more of a pleasure, and their natural aptitude for the subject allows them to perform at a much better rate than you. You would have to put in much more time and work (both of which you cannot afford) in order to receive a high grade-- a grade that will still be humbled by theirs'. By the same token, if you were to take an exam that tested your level of historical comprehension of the imperialism of the 1700s, you have a much greater advantage over many, due to the fact you simply understand history easily and find it fascinating."
- S: "So what you're saying is that standardized test...huh?"
- B: "oh for goodness sake, Steven! STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE UNJUST because they are skewed in favor of those who are more naturally fitted for the subject. By becoming 'fair', they essentially cripple those who have no taste for the subject of the test, who find it (the subject) unbearably difficult, and who cannot seem to understand (at least to an adequate level). I won't even touch even more pressing issues, such as one of your favorites, the phenomenon known as 'test anxiety'...."
- S: "Okay, so I get that it's not just. But life isn't just -- but it is fair. We all walk on the same gravity, breathe generally the same air, live under the same sky, etc. We're all expected to be tested against an ideal standard. What are any alternatives?"
- B: "Sure, that's all fine and dandy, but is scoring everyone by one standard scale and having their scores compared to one another truly the best course of action? Aren't we all beyond this whole 'survival of the fittest' bit? Besides, standardized test give too broad of a result. Joey got a 95 on a science test. Sarah got a 69. Does that mean that Sarah is truly ignorant of the subject? Perhaps, but there are too many variables. What if she did study with all her heart and soul, yet she simply couldn't understand? What if her home environment doesn't allow for fruitful studying? What if her mind, on a biological scale, isn't suited for understanding science? And if she got a 85, does this still mean she is ignorant of the subject? (after all, she is away from a 100 by 15 whole points! POINTS!! What is a point? Can one possibly measure how efficient one is able to use their acquired knowledge?? but i digress...) Must she be compared to the ideal standard of a 100% grade, or to Joey's 95, or to any other? If the aim is to truly measure one's comprehension of the subject matter, then people must be tested on an individual basis. No grade scale. No comparison from one person to another. No more injustice. Personalized test should be implemented, one fit to make up for the variable's of one's life. In this way, more difficult questions will be provided to geniuses, while less difficult questions would be provided to those less suited. The basketball brute would no longer be at a disadvantage, compared to the math geek, in class."
- S: "But test serve a social purpose -- they give an idea of how everyone is performing compared to others. You simply can abolish this concept, it's part of the human's competitive nature!"
- B: "Honestly, I wish it weren't. Regardless, people can still be given this measure by comparing their status proportionally to others. For an example, no longer would Sarah have to worry about be considered lesser than any other, for the test she'll take will be made to suit her individual needs. What she makes on that test can then be proportionally compared to the 'scores' of others, who also took individualized test."
- S: "Well...It seems you have a proper argument forming there (albiet slightly fantastical and abstract), brain, but it's in futility. I still have to study for my finals -- but hey, what you said is good food for thought."
- B: *sigh* "Fine. My hope is some one on your blog will respond interestingly to my thoughts...yours have been..."
- S: " Yea? Have been what?"
- B: "Let's just say you'd make good friends with a neanderthal."
- S: "Sweet! I've always wanted to be pals with someone from the Netherlands!"
- B: "You twit! The citizens of the Netherlands aren't called neanderthals, they're called -- ah, forget it."
What are your brains telling you?
Hey! I have a couple of questions. Are you talking about standardized tests in high school or in college or maybe even graduate school? I agree with you that the education system is messed up but how would you propose carrying out individualized tests? I would argue that a standard to grade against has more merit in a practical sense than individual style grading does (this is coming from someone who made her first B's ever starting senior year, so I'm obviously biased but just hear me out). I know someone who made straight A's in her small private high school then made a 19 on the ACT. I know someone (a lot of someone's) who barely passed high school yet got 30's and above on the ACT. The ACT is a more respected indicator of an individual's abilities to soak in and then throw up information because it has national standards and it can't vary by region. The same goes for AP and IB only on an international scale. Colleges respect 5's for AP and 7's for IB (at least that's what they tell us when students go into those programs) more than they respect straight A's in traditional style classes found in your high school. In adult life you get judged by standards. You can't do adequate work at the office in a timely fashion? Sorry intern, the person waiting to take your job can. So standards are a good way to judge who is good at rigging the system and who is "successful". But what are we testing for when we put kids through the PSAT and the ACT? We're testing how well they can regurgitate information. Like you said, it's easier for the student who genuinely is passionate about what they are learning and being tested on. In the current school system "teaching for the test" and an obsession with standards has drained the passion that I think teaching is supposed to foster in kids. I think we still need a standard, we just need to know what we're testing for and why. Anyway, that's my two cents.
ReplyDeleteThese are valuable two cents. The argument I have above is very broad, so it could very well apply to any classroom...but I was specifically recalling on my time in high school.
DeleteIf I had to right a paper, I'd argue my point on two levels. On the ethical level, I'd say we're judging people's ability (thus their worth) by a set test that is designed for many to fail, and others to succeed. On the practical level, I'd argue the 'teaching for the test' concept you mentioned.
The personalized test would have to have some broad standards in order for it to be considered a test -- it couldn't work without it. But the material presented would be tailored to the needs of the student. Of course, doing this would require a tremendous amount of effort and a standard methodology of determining the handicaps given to each particular test taker.
It all seems very abstract and intangible, but I'd like to see a day where the ability of a student isn't measured in comparison to that of another or to that of an 'ideal standard', but rather recorded and understood for what it is: its capabilities, its weaknesses, its potential, etc. Everyone else's 'score' would then be proportionally compared to that of another, if needed. Yet these values a desire to see are foreign in our competition-centered society.
(* I meant your two cents were valuable, not mine)
DeleteSteven, I don't think you're arguing against the "standardized test", so much as the conventional idea of a "test" altogether, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. So are you proposing a system were teachers create tests that essentially give students golf-like "handicaps"? That is, disadvantaging the, I'll say more prepared students, and giving advantage to the less prepared, to achieve a "level playing field". That's arguably intrinsically unfair. Anyway, assuming that that is fair or better than the current system, I can foresee some potential problems. Who and how does one interpret the beginning level understanding of the student, the student's interest level, and the appropriate knowledge to test for at the end of the course? All these would still have to have some way of "standardization" it seems.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the style of the blog, again.
You're absolutely correct. In moving away from grading on a ideal standard, the method of personalizing each test would have to be a controlled variable, or made standard, in order for the test to be, well, used as a solid measure of skill. I don't suggest a fair test, one that provides the same difficulty level to all students. Rather I suggest a just test, based on the idea of diversity -- since everyone is different, it is ethically correct to grade everyone differently according to their own make up.
DeleteThe small details, as you said, would be the hard thing to figure out. Surely whomever creates a system for classifying levels of understanding, interest, natural aptitude, environmental learning soundness, etc. would be placed under extreme scrutiny and branded as a fool -- after all, it seems human variables cannot be classified so easily as if they were programs or functions on a computer.
I'm glad you enjoyed reading. :-)
I really enjoyed this post, it was quite humorous and I remember feeling this exact way sometimes while taking multiple standardized tests. Throughout high school I took the SAT twice, the ACT three times, 9 AP exams, the PSAT a couple times, the PLAN once, and HSAP once. HSAP which was the high school exit was incredibly easy... One of the math questions was something along the lines of..."a train travels 70 mph. How far will the train have traveled in 30 minutes?" Standardized are one of those things that we all have to do again and again in life, and even though they suck most of the time, they help us along the way, more or less.
ReplyDeleteI like your separation of the fair path from the just path. I think we can envision the difference you discuss by comparing the sport of boxing to other professional sports. In boxing, there are weight classes that correct for natural advantages, whereas in most other sports, everyone just plays against one another. Perhaps this is because some might argue that natural size is different from ability. Of course, though, boxers manipulate their weight.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, there is still a certain extra interest that comes with the heavyweight champion. There is something about absolute standards that, however unjust (or unfair--I could see an argument for reversing your terms), seems to attract others. On the other hand, I have thought that it would be interesting to see the best players not in absolute terms, but relative to their individual natural advantages.
This would mean that we could declare a "mediocre" basketball player to be the best in the world because he or she makes the best use of minimal talents. I think it is ultimately practicality--and lack of interest--that prevents us from using such a standard, but it is an interesting exercise to engage in.