Teach to the Test

[OldGreyEagle]

Always wondered why it was considered bad to teach to the test, and when I taught, my students had one heck of a test to pass.

 

I was the Technical Director of a School of Radiologic Technology (X-ray Techs). It was a 2 year program and to work in a hospital one needs to be registered, one gets registered by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists by passing the test, like a registered nurse passes a test

 

If my students did not pass, I would be out of a job.

 

Talk about a performance bonus, performing meant I could keep my job

 

Sounds simple enough, all I had to do was "teach to the test" but one never knew what questions would be on the test. I knew there would be 200 questions with a set amount of Anatomy and Physiology, Physics, Radiographic Positioning, etc so the program taught Anatomy and Physiolgy, Physics, etc. I didint know what questions that would be used from test to test so "all" I could do was teach what the students needed to know and see what happens. For the three years I taught everybody passed. Not sure if its a testament to my teaching ability or that I had the luxury of motivated intelligent students.

 

So, what is on the standardized tests? Addition? Quadratic Equations? Why is teaching to the test bad? If you know the questions, yes thats bad, but if all you know is the type of questions, why not?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[perdidochas]

If it's a good test, you should be teaching to the test. The problem is some people think that teaching to the test in your case would mean just teaching the 200 answers on the test. However, with a huge test bank, pretty much you have to teach all the relevant material.

 

Interestingly, the ideal lesson planning for any course (under many models) would be to make the objectives first, then the test, and then create the lessons.

[Beavah]

Yah, I reckon as a patient I'd be pretty darn upset if I found out that da X-Ray Technicians were only taught to the test, eh? As a patient, I want 'em to be taught until they can demonstrate an ability to perform in da work environment, which means knowin' how to get a good image under normal and abnormal circumstances and read and interpret images in context.

 

To be honest, I couldn't care less if they passed some paper test so long as they could do that. And if they passed da test by memorizing facts and figures or by learnin' test-taking tricks or by cramming, then I figure I'm not a very happy patient. Or employer. Da student also should feel pretty cheated, too.

 

It's just like scouting, eh? Yeh can teach for understanding... be a real MBC, help the lads really learn how to light a fire in all kinds of conditions or handle real first aid when it counts. Or yeh can teach for da requirement, have 'em memorize and repeat da steps for first aid, test 'em at the end of the day of Merit Badge College.

 

Teachin' for the test is what hacks do. Teachin' for real understanding, mastery, and success - that takes character, commitment, and ability.

 

Beavah

[perdidochas]

Beav,

 

If the test is comprehensive enough, there is only one way to teach to "the test"--teach the subject to a level of complete understanding.

 

The problem is that too many teachers think that teaching the answers to hundreds of questions is teaching to the test. It really isn't. It's lazy teaching. Properly speaking, teaching to the test is teaching towards a high level of knowledge on the subject.

[acco40]

One way to teach to a test - remember the following:

 

1) a

2) c

3) d

4) b

5) a

etc.

 

I don't think anyone is in favor of that. What I think should be taught more is critical thinking, problem solving techniques, etc. Too many times, we think a reguritation of facts is learning.

 

Now what will teachers do? They will "do" whatever it takes to reach the metrics they are given. If the metric is to get the students to pass a test, earn a grade or specific subject matter - that is what they will gravitate towards.

[CalicoPenn]

I believe "teaching to the test" is code for concentrating solely on getting students to pass certain standardiszed tests at the elementary school and high school level.

 

When I went to school (in Illinois), we took the "Iowa test" (named for the University of Iowa). The test was used for research by the College of Education at the University of Iowa and as a tool for schools to measure the progress of their students. At the time I took the test, it wasn't a mandatory test, participation was voluntary. Teachers didn't bother to teach to this test - it measured general skills that we should be learning as a matter of course. It gave teachers and parents a general sense of how the kids were doing. It meant that teachers had a pretty good latitude to teach subjects that they felt would be interesting.

 

Now, these kinds of tests are required. In Illinois, it's the Prairie State Exams - and students must pass them in order to advance and graduate. State standards are now set to closely align with the Prairie State Exam. If the exam expects students to know about US History in the revolutonary war, and has no questions about the War of 1812, teachers won't teach about the War of 1812 because they can use that time to teach more about the revoultionary war. That's the danger to "teaching to the test". If the tests were more about generalized knowledge, then there would be less "teaching to the test". Instead, the tests are about specific knowledge - and if I'm a teacher and my job depends on some smart-buck 8th grader passing the Prairie State Exam, all I'm going to teach him is what he needs to know for the Prairie State Exam. Who cares if we don't go over a fasciniating piece of Illinois history like the Blackhawk War - if it isn't on the test - too bad.

 

That's the danger of "teaching to the test" - and its more an indictment of having these kind of standardized tests than anything else.

[Beavah]

If the test is comprehensive enough, there is only one way to teach to "the test"--teach the subject to a level of complete understanding.

 

Yah, dat's a big "IF", perdidochas. I think if yeh think about it for a minute you'll realize it's an economically impossible "if". The cost for that sort of comprehensive test for most areas, especially da general knowledge taught in schools, is impossibly high.

 

I'm a pilot, eh? Just for fun and some work, just small planes. For da FAA licensing exams there's a well written paper test, followed by an oral, followed by a flight test. Cost per person per test for just that one subject at one level is hundreds of dollars. And let me tell yeh, if that's all I was taught or knew as a pilot I would be an absolute danger to myself and others! So to do a truly comprehensive test for just one subject at just one level would cost thousands per person. Yeh can say da same for the bar exam, or the various medical licensing tests. All very good, all extremely costly, none of 'em covers anywhere near enough to actually measure mastery.

 

The problem is that too many teachers think that teaching the answers to hundreds of questions is teaching to the test. It really isn't. It's lazy teaching. Properly speaking, teaching to the test is teaching towards a high level of knowledge on the subject.

 

Yah, we gotta be fair, eh? I don't think you'll find one teacher in 50 who is in favor of da current testing regimen. I doubt any think teaching to the test is good teaching. It's what they feel is a necessary survival mechanism given an impossible mandate.

 

If we knew on average that it takes 80 hours of flight time for someone to be able to pass their private pilot test, but we were only given 60 hours, some without a working plane, and required to get everyone to pass the test in that time, includin' those that we know started with less skills than the rest and would properly take 120 hours, then I reckon we'd be tempted to try to teach to the test, eh?

 

Beavah

[clemlaw]

>>>One way to teach to a test - remember the following:

 

1) a

2) c

3) d

4) b

5) a

etc.

 

 

[packsaddle]

"The problem is that too many teachers think that teaching the answers to hundreds of questions is teaching to the test."

Yeah, I caught this too. It begs at least two questions: How many teachers are doing this? And what is the threshold for "too many"?

So I ask Perdidochas, do you KNOW how many teachers teach to the test? Are there published statistics? Do you know what the criterion is for an acceptable level of teaching to the test? What is it?

[Eagle92]

I know at the HS I went to, English vocabulary and spelling was based upon the "2691 List" These were the 2,691 words that are in the test back for the SAT and ACT.

 

Also once a week in JR year, we took one of the practice ACTs or SATs that the organizations give out to practice on. School kept in file, and we rotated through them.

 

WELLLLLLL the week of the ACT, we had one of the practice ACT exams that the company gave out. After taking the ACT on Saturday, all of us thought that it was an old practice exam as we had just taken the exact same exam for the real thing.

[packsaddle]

If a person studied the actual test that they took and didn't make a perfect score....well that doesn't exactly cover them with glory does it? So what was your score...no, you don't have to respond if it wasn't a perfect 36.

The national average for 2010 was 21 out of a possible 36. Of all the students who took it, 1% made perfect scores.

http://www.act.org/news/aapfacts.html

 

 

[Lisabob]

Here's what's wrong with "teaching to the test."

 

As Beavah notes, truly comprehensive testing is very expensive, and we all know that there's no extra money for education floating around out there. Further, the test-driven culture that was created (expanded) by NCLB was a classic example of an unfunded mandate, right from the start. States & school districts got told "you have to test all the kids every year to see if they're learning" but not given money to write, score, or analyze the results of these tests.

 

So we settle for badly written standardized tests because they make us feel like we're accomplishing something, on the cheap. We get numbers that we can compare, year on year (even though they are often actually not methodologically comparable, but hey, who cares about that). States write dumbed-down tests that make it look like they're providing stellar educational bang for their buck when in fact, American kids continue to fall further behind on just about every major international standard in existence. Parents are fooled into thinking that their little darlings are learning what they need to know. Teachers may know better, but they have little choice or say in the matter because these tests are mandated in state & federal law.

 

Meanwhile, the need for remediation in math & writing among first-time college students is SOARING. Kids come to college knowing all about how to take tests, but badly lacking in content mastery or analytical ability. Not to mention, seriously burned out by the way education (which could/should be fascinating!) has been made into nothing more than a never-ending series of badly written, boring, high stakes standardized tests. Deep knowledge, insight, creativity, and intellectual curiosity have no place in this model of "education" because they are much harder to test and therefore have become expendable.

 

Eagle92's is a good example. If you spend, say, 3 hours a week for a whole school year practicing the ACT then yes, you will probably do well enough on the "real" ACT. But that amounts to roughly 120 hours of instructional time (3 hrs/week * 40 weeks) that is lost to test taking practice! These days, many schools are doing something like this EVERY year. So, 120 hours/year times 12 years = 1,440 hours of "test prep." Imagine what kids and teachers could have done with those thousand+ hours, instead.

 

 

[Eagle92]

Well I admit I got a 32/36. Even though I took the test 3 days earlier, I still missed 4 oh well.

 

As Lisa states it is definitely a catch 22. there does need to be some measure of testing the student. But when that becomes the whole purpose of the course, there is a problem.

 

 

In reference to perfect scores, we had a kid in my HS did just that. Honor student, the whole 9 yards.

 

Funny thing was, he didn't get into his 1st choice of college b/c he was not really active in anything. Yes in NHS, but nothing else: no extracurriculars, no church groups, nothing.

[skeptic]

Much of education is simply practice. Yet, the practice they need, especially in the formative years, is not focused in the right place. Rote has its place. Knowing the multiplication table from memory is far superior to allowing a chart as a crutch. Learning some rules of grammar and how to spell by memory is not a bad thing. But, many curriculum's dwell far too much on making kids the so called modern methods which often just confuse kids.

 

Another issue is the current idea that somehow average is not acceptable. The standard bell curve no longer applies, as grade inflation is almost forced on the teachers. How dare they grade kids with the grade they actually earned. Too many parents seem to think that their child has to always be on top; and this discourages a lot of kids and makes them afraid to even try. This extends beyond school. I see it in scouting too, in that scouts are far less willing to simply do things on their own.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

So, do Medical Schools teach to the Medical Certification test?

Law Schools teach to the "Bar"

Accounting School to the CPA

 

If the problem is the content of the tests, lets fix the tests, LisaBobs comment on Math and Composition is exactly what I am talking about, I keep hearing Teachers talk about issues like this and the issue never improves. I would really be impressed if the Pennsylvania Association of Teachers (Or whatever they call themselves) would commit come portion of funds to developing a better test and keep working at it. Now, that would demonsrate to me a committment to the youth. They don't have to fund it completely but make some offer.

 

When you hear about teacher going on strike it seems like its always for more salary. Could they threaten to strike because the tests need to be improved?

 

BTW, as I sit here composing this, I have an ad to the right about becomming an Ultrasounf Tech 100% on line. DOn't fall for that, it cant be done.

 

And Beavah, its Xray Technologist, not Technician(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)