So I decided to share my brief opinion...

I know it has been a rather long time since my last post. I had a 3 week break from my graduate courses. Some people may think that I chose to use that time as a break. I did not. I had to plan for my classroom, so I used that 3 week break to prepare for the new school year. A graduate student's work is never finished!

Keeping in mind that I am always working, and I am definitely always thinking, my current course has me living in the world of assessment. Yay! Not really "Yay." but I hope you can hear the sarcasm. My instructor posed these questions: Why is it important for achievement tests to be aligned with learning outcomes, and what happens when they are not aligned? Well, I felt like creating a song after reading the questions. If I had, I would have titled it "Welcome to My Teacher World." I thought I would share my brief opinion on the subject. Keep in mind that my ideas are not necessarily the best, but I definitely claim them as my own. I think it is also important to tell you that at times I choose my battles in my course work. In this case, I chose conflict avoidance as I do not have time to debate topics concerning assessment. I would love to, but "ain't nobody got time for that!" So I decided to share my brief opinion about standardized testing...

My response:

Achievement tests need to be aligned with learning outcomes for several reasons. In terms of education, state-mandated testing serves to determine the effectiveness of classroom instruction and the effectiveness of schools in general (Betebenner, 2009). One of the chief reasons for achievement tests to be aligned is the purpose of curriculum decisions. In criterion-referenced testing, teachers can use the results to determine the learning achieved by students on specific objectives (Geisinger, 2012). In this way, teachers know what specific skills need to be taught in order to achieve learning goals thus making adequate yearly progress and sufficient growth (Betebenner, 2009). The concept of criterion-referenced testing is beneficial to educators; however, when achievement tests are not aligned with learning outcomes, there is little to no benefit.

Educators can struggle with the concept of achievement tests when learning objectives and test objectives do not align. Popham (2014) suggested that definite issues are created when learning objectives are either too broad or too narrow. At times, teachers may find themselves frustrated by too many standards, little clarification as to what an objective requires, and what the state determines as student mastery of a concept (Betebenner, 2009; Popham, 2014). In order for achievement tests to have the most benefit to students and teachers alike, it would seem that states need to have a “Goldilocks” moment in determining levels of performance and developing the descriptions of criteria. This is the only way to ensure that both the tests and learning outcomes fit together "just right." It is only through clearly defined criteria and performance standards that achievement tests can fulfill their intended purposes.

References

Betebenner, D. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 28(4), 42. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00161.x

Geisinger, K. F. (2012). Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 371-393). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13619-020

Popham, W. J. (2014). Criterion-referenced measurement: Half a century wasted? Educational Leadership, 71(6), 62-68. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=94925708&site=ehost-live&scope=site