DISSERTATION BY LESLEY BREMER JULY 2005

Testing, a positive or negative approach towards

assessing young children?

Introduction

There has always been a trickle of criticism directed at overstated claims regarding the accuracy of tests. Why are these tests under sustained attack? Don’t they help us achieve the goal of using a fair, scientific and objective method of selection?

Many professionals, teachers and parents believe testing as a form of assessment is necessary to determine areas of development in young children. However there are those who believe the opposite.

As adults we are all familiar with tests that we have taken in our lives, we are familiar with the process and the implications thereof, and we have the knowledge that a test normally requires either a correct or incorrect answer. Based on these answers important decisions are made, some impact negatively on our lives and others positively. As adults we are equipped to react to test results accordingly, however for young children the results can be devastating, especially when they are not equipped with the skills, emotions and knowledge to cope with such implications resulting from this form of assessment. Tests are constantly part of our lives, but just how early should tests be administered?

In my opinion the use of tests conflicts with “developmentally appropriate” educational practices that promote growth and learning for young children.

The problem with standardized testing is that the testing is standardized. Different learners learn differently, and different teachers teach differently, and different teacher-learner combinations work differently at different times and in different ways.

One cannot fix such tests. Instead, one must abandon them in favour of methods of creative evaluation that are genuinely compassionate and humane and that speaks to the authentic needs of teachers and learners alike. (Prystowsky, Richard, 1990:142).

For years, school districts have used standardized tests to keep track of learner performance and to make comparisons between themselves and other districts.

Assessment can be difficult to understand properly because it is a most complex and constantly changing field which impacts on so many areas of our lives and has such far-reaching consequences.

Test scores influence the way many people think of themselves. The impact can be especially severe for impressionable children. Whenever children are convinced that they will fail, they are well on the way to making that prophecy a reality. Low test scores can stigmatize fully competent young children. This happens because we as a nation have come to believe in the accuracy and impartially of tests beyond all reasonable bounds.

Young children as young as six years are being tested to measure their performance. I aim at identifying the reasons for such tests and the appropriateness thereof.

Chapter 1

Types of assessment and the importance thereof

The forms of assessment mentioned in this chapter are relevant to my thesis and the question that defines it.

Assessment: the difference between assessment and testing:

It is important to understand that tests are a form of assessment, however there is a difference. SiebÖrger (1998:20) has done extensive research in the field of assessment which he defines as the ongoing process of gathering evidence of learning in order to make informed judgments about instructional practice, it occurs continually in the classroom as we see learners in conversations, drawing and constructing. By observing their actions we are able to make judgments. SiebÖrger (1998:29) states that “testing is a systematic procedure for setting and measuring comparable samples of behaviour. A test in which there is only one possible correct answer to each question”. Parent A (2005:3) defines a test as “a series of questions requiring answers that determine a score out of a total and ultimately measuring your knowledge at present”.

There are many types of assessment; however there are two main elements, formative and summative assessment.

Formative Assessment: (feedback and support)

In summary Engelbrecht et al., (1999:110) defines formative assessment as being done throughout the year, the assessments build up a system of feedback and “feed-forward” which forms and shapes the appropriate learning experiences to the optimal benefit of learners. This form of assessment is therefore an ongoing process of information gathering over time. This continuous monitoring of student progress encourages a diagnostic dimension which highlights individual strengths and needs and enables educators to pace students, providing enrichment for fast learners, as well as support and remedial practices where required.

Strategies for information gathering might include tests and testing in which the scores would serve as only one of the many modes of formative assessment. Others might be peer assessment, self-assessment, and analyses of learners’ work in their projects, portfolios, verbal reporting or personal interviewing. Formative assessment is intended

to inform learners how to improve their learning. The emphasis is in encouraging more understanding in the learners in relation to their strengths, weaknesses and gaps in knowledge.

Summative assessment: (grading)

Summative assessment sums up all the results of prior assessments and is used to guide future planning. Summative assessment is seen as the “summary of the learner’s performance – all forms of assessment are added together and averaged to serve a summary purpose at the end of the unit, term or year” (Van der Horst & McDonald, 1997:168). Assessment which is used to report to others about the achievements of a learner – unlike formative assessment, which “points to the future, it points to past performance” (SiebÖrger, 1998:24). Tests would be classified under summative assessment as they are used to sum up individuals achievements.

It is therefore that the sum of all previous forms of assessment provides an overview of learner progress and/or barriers to learning, and is able to assist in meaningful interpretation of strengths and needs. “These forms of assessment are usually conducted and recorded more formally than those of formative assessments. While taking into account what has been accomplished before, a final judgment is often based on some form of test, be it written, verbal or demonstrated” (Engelbrecht et al.,1999:111). This makes the evaluation less subjective and provides evidence of at least one decision which was indicated, but unproven, in the formative assessments.

The roles these two assessment types play are different and complementary but it is their integration which gives us a holistic picture of what is really behind learners learning or not learning. “Formative and summative assessment, have to form a coherent whole to provide a multidimensional view of the learners and of the system in which they have to function” (Engelbrecht et al., 1999:109).

Formal and Informal Assessment

Informal assessment is usually a formative process. This method in my understanding and experience allows for a better analysis of the child’s behaviour in a natural environment over a long period of time. The preschool teacher is able to qualitatively evaluate the pre-schooler and, if the child is assessed during the preschool year, is in a position to supply valuable information to the junior primary teacher. “Assessment which is carried out as part of normal classroom teaching” (SiebÖrger, 1998:22).

Holistic assessment

The outcomes that are assessed are integrated rather than separated, the cycle is as follows: Technical skills – Attitudes – Ethics – Knowledge – Understanding – Problem

Solving

(Van der Horst and McDonald, 1997:167)

The process of assessment should be made up of a variety of methods, techniques, strategies and procedures for gathering information about learners and their learning in many different contexts.

“Holistic assessment demonstrates a multidimensional recognition of all learners as valued, potentially contributing citizens (Engelbrecht et al., 1999:113).

Continuous Assessment

“The continuous updating of assessments of the performance of a learner; learning with frequent pauses for assessment” (SiebÖrger, 1998:25). This means that assessment forms an integral part of all teaching-learning activities. It is not only conducted at the end of a semester or year such as traditional tests and examinations, but should also be based on classroom observation of learners’ answers and responses, homework and classroom exercises and assignments, projects, portfolios and other work done by the learner. The educator is continuously involved in ongoing observation of the learner, either when the learner is participating in a group situation or when involved in a individual activity. This observation also extends to any other activity that the learner does not provide evidence of progress. This form of assessing a learner therefore forms part of the learning process, since the educator can intervene if it is noted that the learner is not grasping a skill or concept. This intervention should help the learner to improve.

Teacher Assessment

Assessment made by teachers of learners' attainment, knowledge and understanding is known as teacher assessment, school-based assessment and formative assessment. The last of these terms is not always appropriate since 'formative' refers to a function rather than the person who makes the assessment. Formative assessment can be based on external tests or learners' own self-assessment while teacher assessment can be summative rather than formative.

Teacher assessment is assessment made by teachers and formative assessment is assessment (made by any means or individual) is used to feedback into the teaching/learning process as described earlier.

“Teacher assessment is essentially, an informal activity: the teacher may pose questions, observe activities, and evaluate learners' work in a planned systematic or ad hoc way” (McCallum et al., 1993). The information which the teacher thus obtains may be partial or fragment; it will not at the time allow the teacher to make a firm evaluation of the learners' competence in reading, for example, or understanding of mathematical process. But repeated assessment of this sort, over a period of time, and in a range of contexts should allow the teacher to build a solid and broadly-based understanding of the learner’s attainment. Because of these characteristics teacher assessment may be seen as having a high validity in relation to content and construct. If the teacher assessment is used for formative purposes which then results in improved learning then the assessment can be said to have consequential validity, to the extent that it has the consequences expected/required of it. If the assessment has sampled broadly across the domain and in depth within it then the assessment is likely to be generalizable (within that domain), since the teacher's evaluation of for example the pupil's ability to read at a certain level or to be able to manipulate single digits, will be based on a broad sample of tasks and assessments. An external test, on the other hand, will provide more limited information based as it is on a one-off occasion covering a limited sample of tasks.

We need to take a child initial ideas seriously so as to ensure that any change or development of these ideas and the; supporting evidence for them makes sense and, in this way, become "owned" by the child.

“Work in psychology and learning tells us similarly that for effective learning the task must be matched to the child's current level of understanding and either pitched at that level to provide practice or slightly higher in order to extend and develop the child's skills” (Gipps, 1992:45). If the new task is much too easy the child can become bored, if much too difficult the child can become demotivated. Assessment to find out what and how children know is thus part of good teaching practice and in helping the teacher to decide what and how to teach next is formative assessment. However, if it is to be really fruitful it seems that the learner must also be involved, since teachers need to explain to learners what they need to do to improve their work or the next steps in the, learning process.

However an issue that has occurred to me in teacher assessment is, where school-based teacher assessment is to be used for summative purposes then the relationship between teacher and learner can become strained, the teacher may be seen as a judge rather than a facilitator. This uneasy dual role for the teacher is therefore a result of the formative/ summative tension. If the teacher assessment were not to be used for summative purposes then the relationship could stay in the supportive mode.

Norm, Criterion-Referenced Standardized Tests and their intended purposes

Tests are a form of assessment as stated earlier. Tests can be categorized into two major groups: norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests also referred to as standardized achievement tests. These two differ in their intended purposes, the way in which content is selected, and the scoring process which defines how the test results must be in

Norm-referenced standardized tests

“Norm-referenced standardized tests are a form of summative assessment” (Kohn, 2000:13). With a test that has been norm-referenced it is possible to refer a child/s test scores to a table of ‘norms’, supplied with the test to see how the child’s score compares with the scores of children of the same age in the sample tested during the test’s development. The sample of children used in test development usually aims to represent the general population of children of the same age, comparing a child’s test score with a test’s norms is often considered equivalent to comparing the child’s performance with that of the child’s peers.

In summary Kohn (2000:10) is of the opinion that when a test is described as standardized it implies more than one thing. It refers to the use of a representative sample in developing the test and constructing norms i.e. listing the scores that known percentage in children of the same age will achieve; and that it refers to the fact that adjustments are made for age in constructing and using the norms and it also implies that the test is administered and marked in a standard fashion, according to procedures described in the manual supplied with the test.

“All norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests are objective. Objective tests are tests that have predetermined answers and standards for scoring a response. Objective scoring does not imply ‘fair’ or justifiable scoring; it implies only predetermined criteria and standardized scoring procedures” (Kohn, 2000:12). Suppose a tester shows a learner a picture of a ship, a car, a passenger train and a bus, then asks the learner “which one is different?” The keyed response (the objective answer) would be ship; the ship is the only form of water transport. If the learner reasons that only the car is a form of self transportation and gives the response car, the response would be scored as an incorrect. Similarly, if the learner responds that the train is the only form of transportation that needs tracks to travel on, the response is scored incorrect. In my opinion “Being fair” has nothing to do with scoring objectively.