Testing for Intelligence?

It is midyear at school, and the high stakes assessments have begun. Are the students on track? Will they be ready to go on to third grade? How should the intervention be modified if students are succeeding? There are more questions than time, but the common theme is always this: What data do you have to back up your answer? Which means, what assessments have you done to confirm your anecdotes about this child’s learning? Short answer then is, yes, I believe some form of testing is necessary. Done the right way it does not have to be a necessary evil.

So then, if we are going to test, what should that assessment look like, and how should the students be measured? Traditional schooling measures how students perform in two core areas: reading and math. In the upper grades, we also test social studies and science. In the United States we use the Common Core Standards, and assess students in such a way that they are prepared based to pass state testing based on the No Child Left Behind Act, now amended to the Every Student Succeeds Act (US Department of Education, 2017). The theory being that using data collected during testing will guide the formation of curriculum, modify ineffective teaching methods, and ensure that no matter what school a child attends in the United States, that student will be provided a quality education. The reality is much more messy. Standard assessments are not as much a measure of how great the teaching in a student’s school may be, or even how intelligent that child happens to be. The test measures how much a student can recall from their memory on one given day, given that the child can sit still long enough to take the test, is well rested and fed (Kandur, 2007). For many students this type of testing is difficult. Berger (2016) discussed the different intelligences, including Sternberg’s 4 types: Analytic, Creative, Practical, and Wisdom (p.359). Standardized tests focus on the analytic type, and possibly the practical but leave out the others. Those who are creative, oral and auditory learners, or hands-on types who struggle to sit still with pencil and paper or computer may be just as intelligent, but just unable to perform on the test as well as their peers.

In the classroom, educators have an opportunity to use assessments to measure basic learning- can the child add and read- in a different way. For instance, spelling has been traditionally taught as rote memorization of a list of words that the teacher then reads off and the students write down. This year in second grade, we are teaching spelling patterns without the list. What I see now is that though the student knew those 10 words by memorization before, they were not truly learning the phonics rules and decoding patterns necessary for transferal from word lists to fluent reading and writing (Everding, 2003). The students must know the rule that a repeated consonant in the middle of the word will make the vowel short (Or in child terms, the 2 p’s in skipped make the I say i like igloo). The assessments are necessary as a way to determine understanding, but the format must then be flexible. For students who are not successful with writing words, a deduction exercise with choices of the correct spelling works, or a scribe. This takes time, but allows the students to demonstrate more critical thinking- a skill that will serve them better in life than rote memorization. In addition, varied forms of testing including projects, presentations, creative demonstrations, computer aided, and paper pencil tests account for the variety in learning styles (Berger, 2016). Academics is only one small part of a child’s day, and can be affected by their home situation, previous developmental or health challenges, cognitive development, culture, economic status, self-confidence, and so much more. In that complicated web, what is more important than fact learning I believe is to find out if the child can understand why the world works, how to apply the knowledge, and how to use what the student is learning in their own life (Kandur, 2017). They must learn to innovate, and we must adapt assessments to encourage students to dig into that learning and solve real problems.

This week I took another look at Switzerland, and found many similarities to the United States in their assessment model for elementary childhood students. The Swiss education system is regulated by the Swiss Confederation of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK). The EDK established the Intercantonal agreement on harmonization of compensatory school, or HarmoS Concordat, as a way to ensure that  students in the compensatory levels (2 years of kindergarten and 8 more years of school) have the basic knowledge necessary in four areas: math, science, and two languages (EDK, 2017). These assessments are given in grades 2, 6, and 9 (EDK, 2017). What is important about the assessments, is the focus the EDK is making on measuring competencies, not just specific content knowledge. They are working to incorporate more critical thinking, and use of cognitive skills, as well as a way for students to demonstrate cross curricular learning (Labudde, 2007). In addition, the test is set up as a monitoring system, to help develop better curriculum and not as a way to grade the schools or teachers (Labudde, 2007). In a typical classroom, assessments are guided by the curriculum, but are controlled by the individual canton (state), and the teachers are looking for a combination of academic performance, learning behavior, attitude to work, and individual/social conduct. They take a more holistic approach to learning.

What is missing from both the US and the Swiss assessments continues to be the evaluation of students in the other areas. Those students who may excel in music, arts, and social sciences are not allowed an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. In addition, as the classrooms are more diverse, we need to account for how culture and economics affect not just what the student is learning, but how they are developing academically (Berger, 2016). We must assess using quality measures, strategically timed and formatted for the students to succeed. This type of measurement for success involves knowing the students individual needs, and investing time to strategically think about what concepts are most important, in short thinking outside the box.

References:

Berger, K. S. (2016). The developing person through childhood (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

EDK. (March 2017). The Swiss Education System. Retrieved from http://www.edk.ch/dyn/16342.php.

Everding, G. (2003). Childrens learning to spell, read aided by pattern recognition, use. Retrieved from https://source.wustl.edu/2003/04/children-learning-to-spell-read-aided-by-pattern-recognition-use/.

Kandur, J. (2017). Testing times: How tests standardized students. Retrieved from https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2017/09/23/testing-times-how-tests-standardized-students.

Labudde, P. (2007). How to develop, implement and assess standards in science education? 12 challenges from a Swiss perspective. Making it comparable: Standards in science education, 277-301.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=policy.