Should Standardized Testing be Something of the Past?

Although standardized testing is currently a particularly hot topic in education, this kind of measurement has been used for more than two thousand years. Additionally, while the outcomes of standardized tests can aid in our understanding of some concepts, they can also be deceiving if applied improperly. What are these exams really measuring, then? And do they merit your time? Arlo Kempf conducted extensive research on this controversial topic.

Over 2,000 years ago, during the Han dynasty, the earliest exams that we are aware of were given in China. Chinese officials used them to evaluate candidates for various government positions. The topics covered ranged from philosophy to farming to even military strategy. For the following two millennia, standardized tests were utilized all over the world.

Today, they are used for everything from assessing stair climbs for firefighters in France to language exams for diplomats in Canada to teaching kids in schools. Some standardized examinations merely compare students' performance to that of other test-takers. Others gauge success by how well test-firefighters The so-called bell curve could serve as a representation of this. Test-takers adhere to predefined standards.

As a result, the firefighter's stair ascent may be evaluated by comparing its duration to that of all other firefighters. The so-called bell curve could serve as a representation of this. Or it might be assessed in accordance with predetermined standards, like carrying a specific amount of weight a certain distance and ascending a certain number of stairs.

The diplomat may also be evaluated in comparison to other diplomats who are taking the test or against a set of predetermined standards that reflect various degrees of language competency. Additionally, a percentile can be used to express each of these results. A diplomat who scored in the 70th percentile performed worse than 70% of other test takers. She would have outperformed 70% of exam takers if her score was in the 30th percentile. Standardized tests are merely a tool, despite the fact that they are occasionally contentious.

Consider a standardized test for a rule as an exercise. There are two factors that determine a ruler's value. First, it's the task we give it. The outdoor temperature or the volume of someone singing are not something our ruler can gauge. Second, the design of the ruler affects how useful it is. Let's say you want to know how big an orange is. Although the length that our ruler measures is accurate, it lacks the flexibility that is necessary for the task at hand. Therefore, if standardized exams are given the incorrect task or are improperly designed, they may wind up assessing the incorrect things.

Students with test anxiety may not perform as well as they could on a standardized test in school, not because they don't know the answers, but rather because they are too anxious to explain what they have learned. As a result, the test results of students who have reading difficulties may more accurately reflect their literacy than their numeracy abilities. Furthermore, students who struggle on exams that include examples from different cultures may perform poorly, which would reveal more about the test-taker's cultural familiarity than their academic skills.

The tests might need to be created differently in certain situations. Additionally, it might be challenging for standardized examinations to gauge abstract qualities or abilities like creativity, critical thinking, and teamwork. The findings of a test may not be accurate or valid if it was poorly designed or if it was given an unsuitable or difficult task. A grasp of standardized tests requires a grasp of reliability and validity. We may compare them to two broken thermometers to see how they differ from one another.

Every time you take your temperature, an invalid thermometer gives you a different reading, while a genuine thermometer that is trustworthy constantly overheats you by 10 degrees. Accurate findings and interpretations are also a requirement for validity. A test may have a validity issue if participants claim that the results indicate something that they do not.

We can't count on standardized tests to accurately tell us how intelligent someone is, how diplomats would manage a difficult situation, or how brave a firefighter might turn out to be—just as we wouldn't expect a ruler to tell us how much an elephant weighs or what it had for breakfast. Therefore, while standardized tests may allow us to understand a little bit about a lot of individuals quickly, they typically aren't able to reveal much about a single person.

Many social scientists are concerned that test results may cause profound, frequently unfavorable changes in test takers, perhaps with long-term life repercussions. But we can't put the blame on the tests. It is our responsibility to utilize the proper tests for the relevant tasks and to properly interpret the results.