Both of the big points against pre-testing sound good, but don't hold water. It's not that I'm for or against pre-tests, but rather find this kind of article to be bad for the masses. The first point reminds me of the No Child Left Behind act standardized testing mind-set and the second feeds the negative connotation of "tests".
To be quite honest, after reading the article I am more for pre-tests than I was before reading it. The author sounds like a very smart guy. At the end of the article there is a section labeled, "About the Author". This is what it says, "Clark Quinn, Ph.D., an internationally known consultant, author, and speaker delivers eLearning solutions including games, mobile learning, performance support, and organizational strategy through Quinnovation, and blogs at learnlets.com . " However, regardless of the thought I see in the article, I just don't agree with his points.
Before and After
At the end of this section in Clark's article he sums it up like this, "In short, what's important is not that learners can do more than they could before, but that they can now do what they need to do. This is criterion-referenced performance. Given this goal, why require a pre-test for every course?" Well, I have some answers.
When I've taken pre-tests at the start of a course there were some things I noted and things I was told. First is that the results help the teacher know what the class needs the most help with. In eLearning that could be a part of informing the help programs and possibly real people (Nifty idea isn't it?) so they are of the most help to the learner. That all by itself is a good reason to have pre-tests.
Second, it IS important to notate how different kinds of students benefit from the course. For instance some research I read about stated that the students who did the worst in normal computer lessons got the most out of games that covered the curriculum. It showed an inverse relationship between how well the students did in the normal methods to the benefits from game methods. Adapting teaching methods to students isn't just about how the same material is packaged. It is also about what material is focused on more. It is also about finding out what helped students the most, to help students and teachers alike.
Third, it IS important to see how much a student improved. That's one of the failings of NCLB. Rather than make sure all students get help improving, everybody is to be made to pass a certain requirement. When you test for how much a person improves you can find out who is having problems with your system that don't speak out for themselves. You can find out who is not being challenged. You can find out who needs more help or needs to apply themselves more. More than that, this gives vital information for evaluating the means and methods of teaching. Which teachers, methods and classes continuously do badly in this kind of measurement should be important to anybody dedicated to quality education. After all, if students aren't learning, what's the point?
Fourth, when given as a means of helping the teacher tailor the class to the students, pre-tests aren't so stressful. I've been a part of classes where the students were joking around afterward about how badly they did, because they were told that it wouldn't count against them. More than that, a proper explanation about the use of the pre-test motivated the students to give it their all without stressing over it. Discussions about the test contents after the test were not uncommon. The results showed the class, of which I was one of the students, what we could expect to learn in the class and there-by had an easy to understand way to gauge our learning with the post-test comparison. Laughing, joking and merriment was the result after the post-test AND the pre-test. That's dependent on how it's given and there being improvement.
Learner Preparation
The basics of his points here are that pre-tests can have benefits in preparing a student for the class, but that there are better ways to get those benefits. I find the means he cites as better ways are better ways of building tests, not replacements to tests. Word problems and situations are superior to plain bland testing, duh. More than that, it is pointed out that students would rather do entertaining activities than take a test. To me, a student, this is obvious. I don't get in trouble for doing badly at watching TV, plus it's likely to be fun. Tests normally aren't fun for a myriad of reasons.
In the end he sums up my objection to how tests are portrayed. "If we start talking about making assessments more aligned to workplace practice, and writing them as mini-scenarios, we have moved into a more interesting discussion. But the reality is that most pre-tests are just rote knowledge tests."
Honestly it seems to me that we need to improve tests, since even a game can be a test. As for preparing the learner, if done properly it can be a part, but is not the whole of preparing students. I find that activities like pre-tests more concretely define the contents of the class than other means I've seen and experienced. It's the difference between a video game and a movie, active and passive.
The Value of Pre-tests
In this last section of the article the author brings up how testing out of a course is a good reason for there to be pre-tests offered. This is coupled with the idea that the pre-tests should be just an option, not a requirement. I do agree with the value of testing out of courses, yet the other reasons I've mentioned make me think that teachers should consider a pre-test as a means to get to know their students better.
Proper Testing
The fact is that normal testing methods don't cut it, and this is well known. With that in mind, the discussion of pre-tests should include currently non-standard testing methods and high quality testing methods. Testing what students know to help the students and teachers get the best results is something students can get behind, so long as their performance doesn't hurt their grade.
Besides the test being well made with the proper weighting, there is the way it is given to the students. In the class I cited before, the pre-test was given after we, the students, had been properly informed. The test was to help us see how much we really knew. It would also help the teacher understand how much we knew, thus improving the class for us. Doing badly wouldn't count against us because no serious content had been taught. So, the activity, yes a test, was given specifically to help us do better in the class and prepare us to learn. It was well received and when the post test came around we were looking forward to taking another shot at the test, better armed and prepared.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
View Blog Reactions
0 comments:
Post a Comment