Testing - online by ‘09

Our great state of Minnesota is exploring putting all state tests online. (Online by ‘09 -rah, rah, rah!) The debate is beginning among educators whether this is a particularly good thing for student workstation time, bandwidth, training, etc. to be used for considerable periods of time during the school to accomplish this goal. It’s a terrific “allocation of scarce resource” question, and perhaps not as simple as it seems on first blush.

Our district is just starting online testing this year using NWEA’s MAPS tests. I am sold on this use of technology for testing for two reasons:

1. Since the tests are online, they can adjust to the student taking the test. As students get questions correct, the questions get more difficult. As students miss questions, the questions get easier. This allows us to see not just how the middle range of students are doing, but the very high and low performing kids as well. A “RIT” score is generated which can then be used to actually measure growth during a time period, say from fall testing to spring testing - not just look at how a student scores against a national norm. (The leveling also decreases frustration and boredom for our best and struggling kids.)

2. The scores of individual students are available immediately. This means a classroom teacher can (theoretically) use them to group students and provide differentiated instruction during the school year.

In other words, the technology is being used for genuine educational purposes, not just because of cost, convenience, or coolness.

I don’t know if the tests being proposed by our state take advantage of the technology. Will they simply be a standard, non-adjusting, norm or criterion referenced tests? Will the scores be immediately useful to teachers? If not, I’d lobby for paper and pencil tests and better use of technology for instructional purposes, such a project-based learning.

We are already learning that providing all students (at least grades 2-10) access to a relatively high-powered computer with good bandwidth for 140 minutes of over a two-week testing window will be a challenge for some buildings in our district. Using wireless labs is not recommended by NWEA. Even if the state gives us money for additional workstations and more Internet connectivity (I am not holding my breath), we don’t have the physical space (for labs) and electrical grid to support more test-taking areas at present. Hmmm, building classrooms now for the sake of online test-taking? I don’t think so.

A number of folks have raised concerns over the seeming shift of emphasis in technology use in districts from creating learning opportunities to running administrative applications. Funding right now seems to be making this an “either/or” situation. I see the indirect benefits to kids of a well-administered district; but my heart is with the direct benefits I see to kids when they become engaged in learning because it’s their fingers on the keyboard.

Experiences with online testing? Can we have both efficient administration and exciting learning opportunities?
_________________________________
2 Comments »

Our system has done two “online” tests, both are in the implementation stage. U.S. History EOY has been the last two year, Biology EOY began last year. We have no data back yet, mostly because they want the test to run three years before they really begin reporting the data. In the case of the history test, after the MC part, they write out answers to 4 essay questions. The US history teachers feel it would be more effective writing them in class rather than the lab.

In both cases it is a BIG problem. The library had to partially shut down for two weeks during the practice test and the read test. In a lab setup it was/is hard to provide the kind of test taking practices, ie not looking at another person’s test. We had network glitches all over.

The History teachers all feel that it would be more effective done in the classroom.

Comment by Deborah Stafford — September 8, 2005 @ 4:34 am

The NWEA tests have about a 3 week time window for both fall and spring. In our K-3 school, we have five 3 third grade classes. Each test is about an hour for the students taking the tests and a half-hour setup time. 1.5 hours times 5 classes times 2 tests (reading and math) times 2 times a year (fall and spring) = 30 hours of lost lab use time by all other students, and 4 hours of lost instructional time per student taking the tests. With limited resources, this is tough.

Can we demonstrate that student achievement has increased with the taking of these tests? How are teachers using the data collected? I can’t say I have an answer for either. The rush to these tests has somewhat left these 2 questions unanswered, and our district is rushing to catch up and answer them. Hmmmm.

Comment by John Dyer — October 6, 2005 @ 10:48 pm