April 2004 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
The Potential, Pitfalls and Promise of Computerized Testing
Imagine administering an online standardized test to an entire class of 11th-grade students when, halfway through the exam, your server holding the test hits a snag and throws everyone offline. Imagine another scenario in which your elementary school has very few computers so you must bus your students to the local high school for a timed test. At the new test site, six students suddenly refuse to take the test and begin crying, while simultaneously more than half of the students discover they have trouble reaching the keyboards. These scenarios demonstrate that there are many risks in using computers to test students. However, thinking ahead about the needs of students, the testing site and the system being implemented limits the potential for problems to arise during testing.
NCLB Guidelines
Though accountability measures have been in place since the inception of education in America, educators have never before been under such highly refined scrutiny or systematic evaluation of teaching practices as they are now. Concurrently, an increased reliance on technology, the Internet and mass media has yielded an ever-increasingly fast-paced American culture.
To make matters seem worse, the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools close achievement gaps much faster than before. As a result, many school districts are scrambling to conceptualize the triadic relationship among NCLB, computerized testing and their school district (Recio, Clark and Sevol 2002).
NCLB requires that each school, in concert with its state's guidelines, develops clear cutoff points for achievement in math and reading. Failure to show positive growth in these areas can result in dire consequences for a given school district, including students transferring to better-producing schools, state-mandated financial changes, and/or a significant swing of autonomy and control from the school to outside sources (McDonald 2002).
Meeting Goals
Garnering and using timely data are the main purposes of computerized testing (Thomas and Bainbridge 2002; Foshay 2001; Olson 2001). Reasons for the focused attention to time include immediate results for students, parents and school personnel, as well as the potential for quicker and more effective changes in both curricular and pedagogical delivery.
Likewise, computerized tests can improve accuracy in both the taking and scoring of tests. Olson (2001) points out that computerized testing allows students to take exams in which one question at a time is asked; thus, lessening the possibility of filling out an answer sheet incorrectly. Furthermore, computerized tests theoretically yield 100% accuracy of results. With computerized tests meeting today's tech-savvy generation of kids, ever-faster, more accurate and clearer ways of testing will continue to develop.
Testing can now be constructed which is directly linked to the district and/or state administering the test. Consequently, standards and outcomes can be directly linked to assessment measures. Such measurement can provide a clearer description of how well institutions are meeting their goals (Olson 2001). It's also important to remember that specific information targeting student performance yields a more refined curriculum.
