Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id RAA16511; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:34:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:34:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <s66d447a.034@nmail.epcc.edu> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Andres Muro <AndresM@nmail.epcc.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:2740] Re: Testing -Reply X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 In the context of literacy education, the outcomes can be multiple and the sociocultural background of participants can also be multiple. Therefore, test makers need to design tests that measure multiple outcomes and norm them with various groups. This is very difficult. However, let us imagine for a second that an ideal test can be developed. There is another reality that may cast a shadow in the test's ability to measure outcomes. Students may not have the same motivation to do well on a test as they would in real life. Rater than test students with standardized instruments, why don't we try assess the extent to which students use language in desired contexts, for the purposes that they intended to. Andres, EPCC El Paso >>> Ron Lavoie <lavoie@cclb.org> 12/08/98 02:57pm >>> I think that well-desgned tests *can* measure desired outcomes, and furthermore have a beneficial backwash effect on learning. At 07:15 AM 12/8/98 -0500, you wrote: >Your suggestions are all pertinent. Let me throw in another problem with >using tests to measure and report outcomes. > >Improvements in test scores may have no relationship to meeting the goals >set by students or funders (Unless the only outcome set is the test score >improvement. Not hard to achieve: just teach test-taking techniques and >rely on regression toward the mean. I can assure you that your test scores >will improve. Especially in very short courses, like two to three months.) >Most programs and most students enter programs with goals other than test >score improvement. When test score improvement is an issue, it is usually >as a means to an end: earning a GED, passing an Ability to Benefit test. >In all of our programs, test score improvements do not mean anything unless >the basic goal of the student is met. > >Unfortunately, to some, test scores become the goal of the program. Whether >or not students achieve any meaningful outcomes becomes immaterial. A >program is said to be successful if students improve 2 grade levels, even if >not a single real-world outcome is met. Within a classroom, where the >outcome might be an intermediate benchmark, it is easy to use a test score >as a measure. I suggest that the real outcome of a single class might >better be whether or not the student is able to successfully transition to >the next level class. > >Kathleen Bombach >Director >Literacy Programs >El Paso Community College > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jjc1945@aol.com <Jjc1945@aol.com> >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> >Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:39 AM >Subject: [NIFL-ESL:2708] Re: Testing > > >>I am not an ESL specialist, but I am a trained reading clinician and I have >>taught reading and writing and some ESL classes. I have also run testing >>programs in a university, done individualized testing for reading and >writing >>diagnosis, and have written many class exams for the courses I taught. I >want >>to comment on the discussion about why some programs are using particular >>tests. >> >>If you are using a test in your program, it would be good to find the >>technical manual for it and read about the norming population and the >purpose >>for which the company indicates the test is written. If the information no >>longer applies to your program's population (even if it did when the test >was >>adopted for use) you may wish to consider another assessment tool. To get >>your program to change, however, you will have to provide a good analysis >of >>the situation and some suggestions for a better way of doing things. >> >>Many people in education question the use of assessment tools, but as long >as >>we receive public money to perform a public service, we have to live with >the >>rules, and testing is one of the ways to measure what we do. Funders >>understand test scores; people outside the profession rarely have the time >or >>interest to listen to a long explanation about portfolio assessment, or the >>value of qualitative assessment. >> >>Most teachers with whom I have worked find some sense of satisfaction in >>testing if they know the test being used is a valid measure of the teaching >>and learning that goes on in the classroom or tutoring situation. The >choice >>of the test can make all the difference in the world to both teachers and >>students who want to feel that the test they take is a real measure of what >>they can do. And, using a test which has been normed on a general >population >>is not all bad. After all, we live in a big country and a big world. I, >>personally, would want to know that when I pass this test, it means I am >ready >>to compete on the larger scale - not just in your program. >> >>The best way to do this is to find an appropriate evaluation tool that >makes >>sense in terms of time available for testing, and the cost for purchasing >the >>device. Most important is that the test must be relevant in terms of the >>population and the instructional goals you are trying to measure. This is >not >>teaching to the test; it is being careful about the tool you use to measure >>what you do. If you are going to test, you need to be able to explain why: >>not just why you are testing, but why the testing you do is able to help >you >>improve the curriculum you offer so your students make good progress. >There >>may never be a perfect test, but if the tests currently on the market no >>longer meet the needs of education programs, or no longer provide a true >>indication of the students' abilities, then the hue and cry should not be >to >>throw out testing, but to develop a measurement which is better for today. >> >>In every area of education where standardized testing is done, there are >new >>tests coming on the market all the time. I have samples of tests from 30 >>years ago which are no longer used but which provide a good example of what >we >>expected from education programs then compared to what we expect today. >There >>are many reasons for testing. There are also many reasons for making >certain >>that the tests we use accurately reflect what we are teaching and what our >>students are supposed to be learning. The sense of accomplishment at the >end >>of a teaching period, when the students can accurately show what they have >>learned, and the teacher/tutor can beam proudly about the success of the >>teaching, make the choice of the appropriate testing instrument one of the >>most important areas of running an education program. >> >>Okay, there's my two cents. Swing away! >> >>June Crawford >> >> > Ron Lavoie, Information Officer Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks rlavoie@language.ca | http://cclb.org 613-230-7729 (vox) | 613-230-9305 (fax) "Language is the key; La langue c'est le clef."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 13:27:29 EST