These standardized tests do not allow test takers to utilize numerous reading and comprehensive strategies such as "talking to the text". Aside from being able to type in assigned boxes and click a button labeled A-D, there is little interactive ability with these computerized tests. The reading strategies of highlighting, underlining and annotation aid me greatly in comprehending an essay or story problem. Yet these strategies cannot be utilized on computerized tests. Now students can learn to adjust their test taking strategies to those better suiting the non-interactive, computerized tests, and I hope that they are. Personally, I never was taught them. I wonder if the gains (grading and organizational convenience) outweigh some of the potential costs (student scores) in this shift to computerized testing.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Dissonance: Computerized Standard Tests and Talking to the Text
The use of computers in today's school systems is increasing, edging out the traditional use of paper. Speaking for myself as a graduate student at the University of Michigan, digital journal articles, documents, worksheets, and writing assignments are being utilized more than their paper forms. This shift in technology is not confined, however, to graduate school; my younger cousins, still in K-12, have been given laptops and tablets be the school to use in class. At that time in my life, computers were utilized in class, but the main technology that I used was a pencil! Just as the use of the computer and new-age technologies is rising in class, they are also becoming more common technologies for assessments such as the standardized, pre-college SAT and ACT tests. Could this shift be negatively impacting a student's ability to take these tests?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like that you brought up the Talking to the Text strategy because I find that it is really helpful in building reading comprehension. For me personally, I also benefit from underlining and making notes in the margins. If students don't learn to do this and other reading comprehension strategies on the computer, I wonder what reading comprehension will look like in the future? I think it is easier to understand a text on paper, but will future students not know the difference because they only read off of a computer screen?
ReplyDeleteJesse,
ReplyDeleteI had not considered the inability to "talk to the text" as a hindrance to people who take tests on the computer. You are right! Although we are allotted text boxes or scratch paper, there is nothing like being able to mark up the text with a pencil, pen, or highlighter. I still however support the move to computerized testing because it is sustainable and minimizes error in assessments. It would be nice if test-takers received a copy of the text in print or were simply given more time to test.
It's really interesting that you brought in the idea of how you can't "talk to the text" when using this online tool. This is something I didn't even consider. But I agree with you, if a student is used to "talking to the text" when reading, they will not be able to perform up to their true level.
ReplyDeleteI remember in high school, when I was taking paper-based standardized tests, for the reading section I would always underline sentences that I thought were important to the main idea, make notes about the possible answers to question in the margins, and make sure to note parts of a process in the event that the text was laying out a specific process. When I am unable to annotate the text, like when I took the computer-based PRE, I find that I am not actually reading the text or looking for main ideas at all. I skip right to the questions, and scan for key words to answering those questions in the text. I wonder then, if it is a valuable lesson to teach students not to read in depth, but to save time and skim for the answers. As an English teacher who would like students to be able to close-read, the idea of teaching to standardized tests makes me cringe.
ReplyDeleteI will second a comment here by saying that the ability to Talk to The Text (or rather, not Talk to The Text) due to the way digital documents are set up, is something which I had not really considered, and If I can sort of run with that comment in another direction, I think has a great deal of bearing on our work at Scarlett with the students there, and the fact that we are still preparing them in an analog fashion. In fact, that in and of itself may really be the window into the reality of the situation that we need; Why are we preparing them with pen and paper instead of computers? 1) Because it is easier and 2) Because we cannot reasonably expect all of them to have computers which are both portable and capable of performing the tasks they would need in order to Talk to The Text. And that right there, the fact that at the end of the day we cannot count on students having that technology available, seems to call into question the very foundations of a push for a purely digital world in education; As long as there are entire school building where students do not have assured access to digital reading mediums, the paper and pen system will remain the only universal method which can cross all economic and cultural divides. I have heard it said before, and I think it fits nicely here, if you are going to try and revolutionize something, your product can't just be different; it has to be fundamentally BETTER. I am not convinced that computer reading, on a whole, always fits that bill.
ReplyDelete