The Test-Preparation Issues - Education Paper Examplew

How do you think classroom teachers can be best prepared to deal with the test-preparation issue in an appropriate fashion? In this argument, Popham (2005) identifies and shades more light on an assessment-related issue that todays classroom teachers confront. I believe that Pophams observation brings our attention to the high expectations and pressure the standardized tests scores put on both the students and their instructors. N her journal article, Patricia Deubel (2008) shades more light on this problem that as contemporary teachers, we need to confront seriously. Research evidence points out that this problem is brought by the existing accountability system that is mandated by the No Child Left Behind (Deubel, 2008). Deubel (2008) explains that teachers confront the dilemma of adopting the standardized tests or using those that they believe to be appropriate. Unfortunately, when students fail to perform better on those standardized tests, their teachers face the possibility of losing their jobs. This stalemate leads Rick Stiggins (2007), as quoted in Deubel (2008), to pose the question: Are we helping our students and teachers to with our assessment practices, contributing to their problems?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

I think an educational achievement test is an essential tool and component in assessing learners and has greater importance in assessing not only teaching progress but also the progress of the students in the subject area. I believe that achievement is directly related to the students growth and development in learning situations. Therefore, accurate achievement data are very important because they provide valuable insights utilized in planning curriculum and instruction as well as program evaluation. This implies that test scores that either overestimate or underestimate a learners actual knowledge and skills in the subject area cannot serve these important purposes

What is the nature of the relationship between students test score and the students mastery of the subject matter/area? In a review of adaptive testing in several State assessments, Michelle Davis (2012) holds that appropriate tests should provide an accurate picture of a learners knowledge and skills in the specific subject area or domain being evaluated. This assertion implies that what a student scores on the tests should be an accurate reflection of his or her level of mastery in the subject matter covered in class.

A high-stakes achievement test refers to any test used to make important decisions regarding students, instructors, schools and/or state, among others particularly for the purpose of accountability. To be regarded high-stakes, a test must be either extremely important in the decision making a processor override other information. In my understanding, high stakes implies that test scores are utilized to determine punishments (like sanctions, penalties, financial support, negative publicity), rewards (such as awards, salary increments, bonuses, public celebration, positive publicity), development or and advancement (student graduation, grade-level promotion).

After exploring this quote, I wondered what contingencies that could result from these tests, which Popham holds that are most commonly experienced by the students who took the high stakes tests or the educators who administered the tests. After thinking for a couple of minutes, I realized some of them. To students, the test results might be used to determine whether or not a student advances to the next grade level or whether he or she gets a degree. For instance, there is an increasing number of states that require students to pass a reading test for promotion from third grade to fourth grade. To educators, the test results may form the basis of job-performance evaluation or to determine their professional compensation like salary increases or bonuses. For instance, the decision to hire fire teachers might be partly based on student test scores.

Research evidence reveals that high emphasis on the high-stakes tests often discourages or disgust excellent instructors (Deubel, 2008; Mathews, 2006). It is actually true that when my school principal or administrator focus more on testing, the whole of my instructor might be reduced to a mere test preparation. When we use narrow tests to hold learners, teachers and schools accountable and when we as the educators as well as our students, schools, and state are subjected to negative public criticism when our students perform poor on standardized tests of schools ranked low, we teachers might leave such schools where we might be needed most. Deubel (2008) confirms the pressure that this accountability system subjects these stakeholders.

In this particular case, I am consciously aware that Mr. Pelkins engaged in a rest-prep malpractice that did not only violate the ethical norms of the education practice but also increased his students students test scores without simultaneously increasing the students mastery of the curricular aim tested. This situation is in line with what Deubel (2008) termed as educators fears that they might lose their jobs should their students score low on the standardized tests. Therefore, Mr. Perkins simply assisted his students to move on from one grade level to the next despite being certain that the students might not have acquired the skills and knowledge required to succeed academically. If I were Judy, I would approach Mr. Pelkins and inform him that clarifying and telling students the correct answer is on the test item is unfair to the students because the test results will definitely not reflect their actual mastery of the subject area. I would further advise him to desist from such gross misconduct and maintain high professionalism especially in assessing students.

In sharing my opinion about Pophams second evaluative guideline, I ask myself the question: Is it appropriate for test preparation educators to assist students during exams? Based on my professional experience, my response to this question would be a yes, BUT through appropriate ways. I believe that our fundamental mandate as educators is to help our students gain the relevant and necessary knowledge, skills and abilities they need to succeed not only in the test at the end of the instruction but more importantly in their subsequent studies as well as future professional and personal lives. Focusing on the test, for example, by artificially increasing students scores on the test while neglecting to increase their mastery of skills and knowledge that the assessment is supposed to reflect amounts to teaching to test. According to Jay Mathews (2006), this practice is not just bad, but very bad. Mathews (2006) explains that teaching to the test not only makes learners sick but renders test scores meaningless or bear a numbing effect on instruction as well.

I think the inappropriate test prep practices Popham (2005) identifies in figure 14.3 based on the guideline of educational defensibility shows a situation whereby high test scores indicate that students have well mastered the curricular aim being tested, but in reality the students have mastered no or very little knowledge and skills they were expected to acquire in a certain content. From Pophams perspective, those students can be said to have acquired the wrong education based on such content.

This issue might explain the growing concern over students graduating from high school or colleges with limited knowledge and skills required to succeed in the next level of education, todays competitive workplaces, and adult life. The basic rationale is that high test results need to reflect adequate preparation and readiness for postsecondary education and careers. In this regard, we as educators should desist from helping our students to earn certificates if they have not acquired not only sufficient but also relevant skills and knowledge as determined by the curricular aim. The use of any artificial means to increase students test scores without guaranteeing their mastery of the subject matter is a sign of lack or limited preparedness on the part of both the students and the tutor. In the case of Mr. Perkins clarifying and telling his students that the correct is on the test item, Judy must have perceived the student's test results as insufficient evidence that Mr. Perkins students were prepared to move to her class.

I agree with Pophams observation that with this type of test-prep, current forms of the test have to be stolen or reproduced in a suspicious manner so as to be utilized in such inappropriate sessions aimed at boosting students scores. Indeed this approach might elevate the chances of cheating among teachers and their students, as well as school administrators, for example through well-coordinated, large-scale cheating schemes. Mathews (2006) opines that unless teachers sneak into the counseling office and steal a copy, which can get them fired, they don't know what's on the test. Particularly, this vice might be highly possible for those educators and school administrators seeking to avert negative sanctions and punishments that accompany poor test performance.

In my on perspective, generalized test-taking preps can avoid spoon-feeding students like in previous form, current form, and same format test preparations. I strongly disagree with Duebels (2007) idea that students should know what to expect. On the contrary, test preparation needs to be as brief as possible to avoid promoting a more narrow academic program for the students. This approach might help educators and school administrators to avoid neglecting or reducing instruction in untested subject areas that are still important for their adequate preparation for their future college and career life. Instead of teachers focusing on mindless test drills, I h...