In our second class session, we delved deeper into the role technology has begun to play in the classroom and educational process. An investigation into the realms of computerized testing brought on some heavy distaste from much of the class, citing the difficulty of navigating the simulated test page, to the increased strain of reading off of a screen, to the examination of inequities brought upon by the implementation of testing with technology. As I reflect on that experience, while at the time I saw how frustrating it was to manage this technology while also being under the pressure of taking a very important and consequential exam, I look now with maybe a more open-minded perspective.
We as graduate students may have had to take a graduate level exam in similar conditions, such as the MCAT, GRE, PRE, and others, without much training, and this experience could have been unnerving. It seems even more unnerving to think that middle and high schoolers would have to deal with those same conditions, and the thought of it could be frightening. However, as I think about it, I would think/hope that those students are now being prepped in how to approach such testing conditions, to better prepare them for the environment they'll be entering. With practice, they will become acquainted and trained in approaching these exams, in the same way that we were taught how to fill in bubbles correctly, how to read a passage but first look at the questions that follow it, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of this switch completely to technology as a means for testing. As an English major and fan of reading novels, I place a much higher value on reading paper than on a screen, and do much better in terms of comprehension and in problem solving when writing things down, rather than typing. Nonetheless, I was trained in those regards, and the same can probably be achieved as students start to be trained to use technology primarily for their educational pursuits. Obviously research has shown the comparisons between virtual and physical formats of learning, but I think the literature will change as students train more to become proficient in computerized learning.
This post has definitely been all over the place, and it probably seems to say that I am content with technology as the primary means of instruction/testing in the future. This isn't the case, but I want to look at the bright side and try to find positives, especially since it looks like I can't change this trend towards technological implementation at all levels. My only hope is that the intentions behind this movement are student-driven, but I can't see how that could be the case. Are these technologies being used to save money, time, and difficulty on the administration and governments part, or is there real motivation to make technology the main source in order to benefit students and their development in the long term? I wish I had the answer to that, because that's what I truly care about.
Mr. Hakim, I really enjoyed the conclusion of this post. You bring up an excellent point. A move towards computer based testing SHOULD be in the students' best interests. I am also skeptical like you. The research shows that reading comprehension suffers when students read on screen as opposed to paper. However, maybe the logic behind the transition is just that it is only that way because it's what students are used to. Maybe this is a transition stage for society and in 20 years it will be the opposite because it's what students will be used to. I don't know if there is research on that, but it's interesting to consider.
ReplyDeleteI also really like this post because it aligns perfectly with your blog title. You want to unlock the true potential of students, and it is apparent that you want the assessments to give them the opportunity to show their full potential.
Kareem, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on computerized testing and I think we share similar feelings about this topic. Your statement about how unnerving it is to think that middle and high schoolers have to take these tests with little training made me think for a moment. If college students and other adults get frustrated with computerized tests, I can't imagine how frustrated a younger student might become. As graduate students, we have probably had much more experience with technology in our lives than the majority of middle and high schoolers, simply because we have had more time to explore the digital world. Thinking about those students who are underprivileged, they might have even less experience. What happens to them?
ReplyDeleteI really wonder if schools are actively trying to prep their students for computerized testing or if they are still prepping them on paper. As we have discovered, just learning the content material is not enough for most student to do very well on an exam. Learning about the interfaces used on the test will probably significantly impact their test scores.
I wonder what would happen if third graders had to start taking the MEAP on the computer! I don't think this would end well...
Hi Kareem,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated your post and your attempt at a positive outlook on computerized testing. I, too, love paper-based readings, be they textbooks, novels, or the newspaper; despite being an optimistic person, it's hard for me to consider the pros of computerized testing with an appropriate mindset. However, your point about training students for these tests is very important. I never received any sort of training; thus, the online GRE seemed horrible to me. I hated not being able to annotate my text. High school students would potentially have the same struggles--a bit of training could go a long way.
As much as I would have wanted these changes to be student driven as well, it seems like they definitely are not (other than maybe to make taking the test cheaper). Since we, as teachers, probably are not going to halt the switch to online testing, should we then work more to encourage training for students in high school? Do you have any ideas on ways to better prepare students for testing in different modalities?
I think making the testing taking more ergonomic is also important. Training can only go so far if the equipment we use is still putting extra mental and physical stress on test-takers. For example, the light-emitting screens of computers put more eye-stress on users than "electronic ink" devices. Maybe as the devices we test on evolve as well as electronic training increases, the difference between paper and electronic testing will decrease.
ReplyDelete