Concrete and Measurable Evidence of Learning

Formal assessment provides concrete, measurable and objective evidence of learning. Standardized tests are
popular because they have been vetted for reliability. Teachers can use test results to measure student progress over
time and also to compare one group of students to another. For example, a teacher might administer a test that
measures knowledge and understanding of a topic such as photosynthesis before the subject has been introduced, and
then administer the same test at the end of the unit to measure the knowledge gained.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8202078_advantages-disadvantages-formal-assessment.html

Formal Assessment Helps to Sort Students
Frequent formal assessment gives meaningful feedback to students and their parents; this is especially
important for students who are experiencing learning problems. These objective measures of achievement can assist
in determining the most appropriate course of study for students and help convince parents to place their child in a
recommended program. Results of formal assessment are also useful when determining which students are most
deserving of awards and prizes as well as for counseling students about their post-secondary options.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8202078_advantages-disadvantages-formal-assessment.html

Formal Assessment May Be Stressful
Students frequently find formal assessments stressful. They may suffer from text anxiety to such an extreme
that they freeze and momentarily forget everything they learned; in such cases their test results will not be an accurate
reflection of their learning. Test conditions might become so unpleasant for them that it negatively impacts their
future learning. Students who cram the night before a test might get a relatively good mark but may not retain the
information over time. Some students might resort to cheating in high-stakes situations.

Flawed Test Construction

A badly worded question might lead students to misinterpret the problem and miss the opportunity to
demonstrate their knowledge. Teachers might unintentionally allow their personal bias about what they consider
important to unfairly determine what part of the material will be included on -- or excluded from -- the test; students
who know only a limited amount of material may achieve a high score if the test places a great deal of emphasis on the
section they happen to know well. Unfortunately, not all tests are constructed to actually measure what they are
intended to measure.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8202078_advantages-disadvantages-formal-assessment.html

No one can deny the fact that handwritten test has proved itself to be an
indispensable part of knowledges evaluation. And it is believed that students
achieving good results from this are considered clever. In my opinion, traditional
form of examinations would continue to be used as an intelligent appraisal
measurement.

Needless to say, standard test has been considered as an important

measurement due to its plentiful forms of inquiry. For instance, a well-designed
test paper including a range of tasks, such as multiple choices, true or false
question or essay question can evaluate students learning ability and their
master of knowledge from different perspectives. However, sometimes students
may cram for the exam or use rote learning, which could make pen and paper
test fail to fully examine the comprehensive acedemic ability of students.

Another undeniable reason why handwritten test can measure a students true
knowledge achievement is that student could have the opportunity to share
their own views to a specific problems. Take essay as an example. When
students are given an essay topic at a test, they are encouraged to freely write
about anything in their mind based on what they have been learnt and
occasionally there would be some possibility to get genius ideas while taking an
exam. The minus negative of taking test in normal way is that it might trigger
anxiety in student so that they can not show their real capacity.

In conclusion, I believe that traditional pen and paper tests can provide a high
quality assessment on students intelligence. Therefore, they would persisted
continuously as a vital method of evaluation in educational system.

Norm-Referenced, Standardized Exams

Definition: Group administered, mostly or entirely multiple-choice, objective tests
in one or more curricular areas.
Scores are based on comparison with a reference or norm group. Typically must be
obtained (purchased) from a
private vender.
Target of Method: Used primarily on students in individual programs, courses or for
a particular student cohort.
Advantages:
Can be adopted and implemented quickly
Reduce/eliminate faculty time demands in instrument development and grading
(i.e., relatively low
frontloading and backloading effort)
Objective scoring
Provide for externality of measurement (i.e., external validity is the degree to
which the conclusions in your
study would hold for other persons in other places and at other times ability to
generalize the results
beyond the original test group.)
Provide norm reference group(s) comparison often required by mandates.
May be beneficial or required in instances where state or national standards exist
for the discipline or
profession.
Very valuable for benchmarking and cross-institutional comparison studies.
Disadvantages:
May limit what can be measured.
Eliminates the process of learning and clarification of goals and objectives
typically associated with local
development of measurement instruments.
Unlikely to completely measure or assess the specific goals and objectives of a
program, department, or
institution.
Relative standing results tend to be less meaningful than criterion-referenced
results for program/student
evaluation purposes.
Norm-referenced data is dependent on the institutions in comparison group(s) and
methods of selecting
students to be tested. (Caution: unlike many norm-referenced tests such as those
measuring intelligence,
present norm-referenced tests in higher education do not utilize, for the most part,
randomly selected or
well stratified national samples.)
Group administered multiple-choice tests always include a potentially high degree
of error, largely
uncorrectable by guessing correction formulae (which lowers validity).
Summative data only (no formative evaluation)
Results unlikely to have direct implications for program improvement or individual
student progress
Results highly susceptible to misinterpretation/misuse both within and outside the
institution
Someone must pay for obtaining these examinations; either the student or
program.
If used repeatedly, there is a concern that faculty may teach to the exam as is
done with certain AP high
school courses.
Ways to Reduce Disadvantages
Choose test carefully, and only after faculty have reviewed available instruments
and determined a
satisfactory degree of match between the test and the curriculum.
Request and review technical data, especially reliability and validity data and
information on normative
sample from test publishers.
Utilize on-campus measurement experts to review reports of test results and
create more customized
summary reports for the institution, faculty, etc.
Whenever possible, choose tests that also provide criterion-referenced results
Assure that such tests are only one aspect of a multi-method approach in which
no firm conclusions based
on norm-referenced data are reached without cross-validation from other sources
(triangulation.)
Review curricula and coursework to assure that faculty do not teach to exam
SUMMARY: ADVANTAGES

In spite of the debate over state and national standards reform efforts, it is universally
agreed by educators and experts that a key component of improving student achievement is
raising standards.

In the 1996 National Education Summit, state governors, education leaders, and business
leaders came to a consensus that use of standards will:

1. Help all students learn more by demanding higher student proficiency and providing
effective methods to help students achieve high standards;

2. Provide parents, schools, and communities with an unprecedented opportunity to debate

and reach agreement on what students should know and be able to do;

3. Focus the education system on understandable, objective, measurable, and well-defined

goals to enable schools to work smarter and more productively;

4. Reinforce the best teaching and educational practices already found in classrooms and
make them the norm;

5. Provide real accountability by focusing squarely on results and helping the public and
local and state educators evaluate which programs work best.

Proponents of standards-based reform argue that flexibility in past reform efforts have not
necessarily been shown to be successful. State tests can highlight gaps and promote
pressure for improvement, as well as demonstrate that these gaps will drive the resources
to the most needy schools. On a wider scale, a major advantage of standards-based reform
is that standards and assessments can allow access of curriculum for all students, as well as
more equitable outcomes.

However, it is generally agreed that in order to be successful, these higher standards must
be aligned with reforms in testing, teacher education, improved teaching practices, and
proper allocation of resources.

SUMMARY: DISADVANTAGES

While several states are implementing some form of standards-based reform, there is very
little empirical evidence to prove that standards, assessment, and high-stakes accountability
programs are effective in improving public schools. In many states, such as California,
attempts to implement standards-based reform are inconsistently or carelessly aligned with
quality research. The following are some of the shortcomings of standards-based reform.

1. Recent reports on the standards-based reform movement in New York suggest that in
many schools the careless implementation of standards and assessment may have negative
consequences for students.
2. Vague and unclear standards in several subject areas in several states complicate matters
and do not serve as concrete standards defining what students should know and be able to
do.

3. Top-down standards imposed by the federal or state government are also problematic.
They impose content specifications without taking into account the different needs,
opportunities to learn, and skills that may be appropriate for specific districts or regions.

Standardized Tests: Advantages

Student: So are all standardized tests good to use?

Expert: Well, actually, there are multiple advantages and disadvantages of these types of tests. Let's talk about the advantages
first.

There are many advantages of standardized testing:

1. Standardized tests are practical, they're easy to administer and they consume less time to administer
versus other assessments.
2. Standardized testing results are quantifiable. By quantifying students' achievements, educators can
identify proficiency levels and more easily identify students in need of remediation or advancement.
3. Standardized tests are scored via computer, which frees up time for the educator.
4. Since scoring is completed by computer, it is objective and not subject to educator bias or emotions.
5. Standardized testing allows educators to compare scores to students within the same school and across
schools. This information provides data on not only the individual student's abilities but also on the school as a
whole. Areas of school-wide weaknesses and strengths are more easily identifiable.
6. Standardized testing provides a longitudinal report of student progress. Over time, educators are able to
see a trend of growth or decline and rapidly respond to the student's educational needs.
Standardized Tests: Disadvantages
Expert: There are disadvantages of standardized testing. Standardized testing is also highly scrutinized. Critics cite the following
disadvantages for the use of standardized testing:

1. Standardized test items are not parallel with typical classroom skills and behaviors. Due to the fact that
questions have to be generalizable to the entire population, most items assess general knowledge and
understanding.
2. Since general knowledge is assessed, educators cannot use standardized test results to inform their
individual instruction methods. If recommendations are made, educators may begin to 'teach to the test' as
opposed to teaching what is currently in the curriculum or based on the needs of their individual classroom.
3. Standardized test items do not assess higher-level thinking skills.
4. Standardized test scores are greatly influenced by non-academic factors, such as fatigue and attention.
Factors That Impact Standardized Testing By Grade
Student: Yeah, I've noticed that if I take a test on a day that I'm really tired, I'll perform lower than usual.

Expert: Yes, there are several factors that will impact standardized test scores.

A big disadvantage to standardized testing are those non-academic factors that impact scores. These include test anxiety, fatigue,
lack of attention - and the list goes on. Specific characteristics can be categorized by grade.

In grades kindergarten-2nd, students have a short attention span, and there is a large amount of variability in their attention span.
There is very little motivation to do well on standardized tests in this grade range due to students' inability to understand the
purpose of the test. Test results are also inconsistent among this grade range.

For grades 3-5, test scores are interpreted as the 'end-all be-all' for evidence of academic ability, which causes a lot of stress and
anxiety. Students in this grade still have a wide range of abilities and levels of understanding, which lead to wide variability in
scores.
In grades 6-8, there is an increase in test anxiety. Students also tend to become more skeptical about the value of standardized
tests in this grade range.

- objective items should therefore

be balanced with other forms of
evaluation
test-wiseness means can get right answer
without really knowing
over-reliance onobjective item tests
will encourage rote memorization
Standardized achievement tests have existed for decades as a major measuring tool of
U.S. students' educational achievements. Proponents claim that such tests are the only
legitimate indicator of how well schools are doing and offer an in-depth snapshot of
students' academic progress. Critics respond that the concept pushes districts into a
culture of permanent test preparation, is culturally biased and skews toward students
with superior test-tasking skills.

Accurate Performance Indicator

Used appropriately, achievement tests can provide an accurate snapshot of how well students are
performing in various subjects against a national comparison group, according to W. James Popham, a
professor emeritus and testing expert from the University of California, Los Angeles. Parents appreciate
having such information to pinpoint areas where children can do better. Teachers also benefit from the
ability to objectively measure a student's comparative strengths and weaknesses.

Effective Venue for Change

Educational policymakers often use standardized test results in deciding how to allocate resources.
According to Popham, such funds are best used in districts whose scores suggest that serious action is
required. Examples include special funding to support staff development activities or after-school
tutorial sessions for low-performing students. Test scores can help in rallying parents and residents to
change how a school district operates.

Efficient to Administer
Standardized assessment tests remain the preferred medium for evaluating large groups of students.
All scoring is done by computer, which takes human error out of the process, while greatly reducing
the time that's needed to grade tests. The use of computers also helps local districts track a child's
academic progress as he moves through the school system.

Negative Pressures on Schools

Funding and salary improvements are frequently tied to standardized test score results. The resulting
pressure affects school districts negatively in several ways, according to the League of Women Voters
of Greater Las Cruces Education Committee. Administrators may try to rig test scores, because schools
that don't measure up suffer budget cuts. Low-performing students may be written off and placed in
classes that don't challenge them. The outcome leaves students and teachers feeling demoralized and
unmotivated.

Not All Skills are Measured Equally

No achievement test, no matter how unbiased it seems, can equally measure what children learn.
Critics like the National Education Association's president, Dennis Van Roekel, contend that such
systems lack credibility when the subject matter is tied to what teachers do in the classroom.
Additionally, the multiple choice format of such tests measures knowledge and skills, not creativity and
problem-solving.

Questions About Fairness

Although public attitudes remain broadly supportive of standardized testing as a concept, questions
persist whether the scores reflect a level playing field. For example, the gap in achievement results
between rich and poor students has swelled to around 60 percent since the 1960s, TIME magazine
reports. African-Americans and Latino students also perform less well than Asians and whites, although
decades of research have not identified the reason for this.

Advocates of formal reading tests claim they hold teachers accountable for high-quality
instruction and improve education, but critics argue they unfairly pressure students and
teachers and do not account for differences in learning styles. Formal reading tests are
scored and timed according to specific rules and generally given at the same time of
year for all students so results are fair and can be used for comparison, according to LD
Online. However, they might unfairly favor students who receive better test preparation.

Sponsored Link

www.tokushuseisou-ihinseiri.com/
Objective Yet Limited
Formal reading tests give an unbiased and objective measure of reading ability. They are scored
anonymously, not subject to teacher biases and less susceptible to grading errors. However, their
results offer limited help because teachers do not have any input into test makeup or insight into why
students receive certain scores, according to information from the Florida Department of Education.
The test questions generally have only one correct answer and do not test higher-order thinking skills.

Supported by Data
An advantage of formal tests over informal tests is that they are backed by research. Formal reading
tests have been tested to be sure they are error free and measure abilities fairly, reliably and
accurately. They have statistics and comparable data to support their results, as Scholastic reports.
Test scores generally are calculated by computerized systems, and results can be compared to other
students of the same age or ability level, regardless of school or educational setting.

Effects on Attitudes
Some students might experience test anxiety when taking formal reading tests, a disadvantage over
more relaxed assessment situations. Test anxiety might cause reading abilities to decline and
performance to suffer, according to the Mayo Clinic. Some students are not good test takers or have
learning styles not conducive to formalized tests. While they might excel in natural reading settings,
formalized testing situations might distract or overwhelm some students. The intense pressure to do
well on formal reading tests might cause some students to dislike reading for enjoyment.

Test Preparation
Teachers might feel pressure for students to receive higher scores on formal reading tests, especially
when their job stability and pay advances depend on it, according to a New York Times article. These
pressures and high expectations might cause some teachers to have unethical test preparations. To
ensure improvements, teachers might obtain copies of tests and teach only on topics covered on the
test. Not only does this unfairly skew results, teachers might leave out other potentially important
subjects and become less creative in their lesson planning.