Download The Role of Aptitude Tests in Education: Enhancing Instruction and Learning and more Lecture notes Education Planning And Management in PDF only on Docsity!
Semester: Autumn, 2020 ASSIGNMENT No. 2 Q.1 Why aptitude test is used in education?" How aptitude test are diferent from achievement test? Explain in detail. Achievement Tests Achievement tests are designed to assess a test taker’s knowledge in certain academic areas. If you think about the word achievement, that is precisely what these kinds of tests measure. An achievement test will measure your achievement or mastery of content, skill or general academic knowledge. Achievement tests can be both standardized and formal, but they can also be summative, non-standardized assessments given in class. Either way, these types of assessments will measure your achievement or mastery of the content. This type of assessment focuses on your previous learning and knowledge. Non-Standardized Achievement Tests Examples of less formal, non-standardized achievement tests include a cumulative final exam in a psychology class or an end-of-course assessment in math. Another example would be a comprehensive assessment of Spanish II at the end of the year. An assessment like this may include a written and speaking portion of the exam. This type of achievement test will measure whether or not you mastered the content of the course. These informal assessments measure a student’s achievement in specific academic areas. They may determine promotion to the next grade level or determine pass or fail of a certain subject area. They may also measure a student’s current level of ability in the subject area by demonstrating skills through performance measures. An example may be a performance assessment in a language that you are studying. Lastly, a non-standardized achievement test may be a specific skill demonstration to determine your ability in martial arts or athletic skill. For example, athletes hoping to get recruited for a college football team will perform a series of achievement tests such as sprints, jumps and agility. These assessments will measure and highlight their athletic ability. When you look at achievement vs. aptitude vs. ability, you get different results. Standardized Achievement Tests Standardized achievement tests differ from informal types of achievement tests because these are standardized to measure specific things. These types of tests can only be administered by individuals who have been trained to do so. Also, results for these tests are often compared across the age and grade level of test takers. A standardized test includes the same format, same types of questions and the same content no matter when or where the test is administered or who is taking the test. Standardized tests share the common characteristic of being measurable and quantifiable. Scores from standardized tests are quantifiable and result in a numeric measure, often a percentile, percentage or grade equivalency. Examples of standardized achievement tests include the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ), the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT-R) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT). Other, more familiar standardized achievement tests include the ACT and the SAT.
Semester: Autumn, 2020 Why Use Achievement Tests? The specific results obtained from an achievement test are most commonly used for admissions or high school placement. Colleges and universities can rely on these measures for accuracy mainly because the results are standardized. Achievement tests may also be used for scholarship applications or acceptance into honor societies. Because these tests focus on mastery of previously learned material and content, schools rely on them as an indicator of academic past and future success. Aptitude Tests While the achievement tests measure a test taker’s level of knowledge or mastery of specific content, the aptitude test measures a test taker’s potential for future learning. In this instance, think of the word aptitude, which is defined as a person’s natural ability to learn a skill or perform a task. Additionally, this type of assessment measures a student’s current and potential ability to perform certain tasks. Aptitude tests measure a test taker’s natural talents or abilities and can serve as a guide for future planning. These types of assessments may include a series of questions in which a test taker simply makes a value judgement, to agree or disagree, and the results may show what types of career paths they would be suited for. These tests may also ask test takers to indicate preferences. Other types of aptitude tests include personality inventories. These types of assessments will indicate the personal preferences and interpersonal strengths and weaknesses of the test taker. These tests may also measure a test taker’s ability to solve complex problems or future abilities to perform certain tasks. Why Use Aptitude Tests? For high school students, aptitude tests are widely used to help them determine a path of future study. For example, an aptitude test may indicate a test taker is an extrovert and enjoys public speaking. For another test taker, it may indicate a strength in complex reasoning and problem solving. These results will align with certain areas of study and professional careers. This may be especially helpful for students who are not sure what they want to study or what type of post-high school career they want to pursue. Aptitude Tests and IQ Tests The main difference between aptitude tests and IQ tests is the focus of the tests. IQ tests measure a very broad range of abilities and the results indicate a person’s general intelligence. You might think of this test as a shallow assessment of a broad range of items. The aptitude test, however, measures a much narrower range of abilities. This test uses a specific set of parameters to go in-depth into certain areas of skill. While this test is very specific, it is important to understand that it is limited in what it can predict. Achievement vs. Aptitude Similarities
Semester: Autumn, 2020 To use assessments to improve instruction and student learning, teachers need to change their approach to assessments in three important ways. Make Assessments Useful For Students Nearly every student has suffered the experience of spending hours preparing for a major assessment, only to discover that the material that he or she had studied was different from what the teacher chose to emphasize on the assessment. This experience teaches students two un-fortunate lessons. First, students realize that hard work and effort don't pay off in school because the time and effort that they spent studying had little or no influence on the results. And second, they learn that they cannot trust their teachers (Guskey, 2000a). These are hardly the lessons that responsible teachers want their students to learn. Nonetheless, this experience is common because many teachers still mistakenly believe that they must keep their assessments secret. As a result, students come to regard assessments as guessing games, especially from the middle grades on. They view success as depending on how well they can guess what their teachers will ask on quizzes, tests, and other assessments. Some teachers even take pride in their ability to out-guess students. They ask questions about isolated concepts or obscure understandings just to see whether students are reading carefully. Generally, these teachers don't include such “gotcha” questions maliciously, but rather—often unconsciously—because such questions were asked of them when they were students. Classroom assessments that serve as meaningful sources of information don't surprise students. Instead, these assessments reflect the concepts and skills that the teacher emphasized in class, along with the teacher's clear criteria for judging students' performance. These concepts, skills, and criteria align with the teacher's instructional activities and, ideally, with state or district standards. Students see these assessments as fair measures of important learning goals. Teachers facilitate learning by providing students with important feedback on their learning progress and by helping them identify learning problems (Bloom, Madaus, & Hastings, 1981; Stiggins, 2002). Critics sometimes contend that this approach means “teaching to the test.” But the crucial issue is, What determines the content and methods of teaching? If the test is the primary determinant of what teachers teach and how they teach it, then we are indeed “teaching to the test.” But if desired learning goals are the foundation of students' instructional experiences, then assessments of student learning are simply extensions of those same goals. Instead of “teaching to the test,” teachers are more accurately “testing what they teach.” If a concept or skill is important enough to assess, then it should be important enough to teach. And if it is not important enough to teach, then there's little justification for assessing it. For Teachers The best classroom assessments also serve as meaningful sources of information for teachers, helping them identify what they taught well and what they need to work on. Gathering this vital information does not require a sophisticated statistical analysis of assessment results. Teachers need only make a simple tally of how many
Semester: Autumn, 2020 students missed each assessment item or failed to meet a specific criterion. State assessments sometimes provide similar item-by-item information, but concerns about item security and the cost of developing new items each year usually make assessment developers reluctant to offer such detailed information. Once teachers have made specific tallies, they can pay special attention to the trouble spots—those items or criteria missed by large numbers of students in the class. In reviewing these results, the teacher must first consider the quality of the item or criterion. Perhaps the question is ambiguously worded or the criterion is unclear. Perhaps students mis-interpreted the question. Whatever the case, teachers must determine whether these items adequately address the knowledge, understanding, or skill that they were intended to measure. If teachers find no obvious problems with the item or criterion, then they must turn their attention to their teaching. When as many as half the students in a class answer a clear question incorrectly or fail to meet a particular criterion, it's not a student learning problem—it's a teaching problem. Whatever teaching strategy was used, whatever examples were employed, or whatever explanation was offered, it simply didn't work. Analyzing assessment results in this way means setting aside some powerful ego issues. Many teachers may initially say, “I taught them. They just didn't learn it!” But on reflection, most recognize that their effectiveness is not defined on the basis of what they do as teachers but rather on what their students are able to do. Can effective teaching take place in the absence of learning? Certainly not. Some argue that such a perspective puts too much responsibility on teachers and not enough on students. Occasionally, teachers respond, “Don't students have responsibilities in this process? Shouldn't students display initiative and personal accountability?” Indeed, teachers and students share responsibility for learning. Even with valiant teaching efforts, we cannot guarantee that all students will learn everything excellently. Only rarely do teachers find items or assessment criteria that every student answers correctly. A few students are never willing to put forth the necessary effort, but these students tend to be the exception, not the rule. If a teacher is reaching fewer than half of the students in the class, the teacher's method of instruction needs to improve. And teachers need this kind of evidence to help target their instructional improvement efforts. Follow Assessments with Corrective Instruction If assessments provide information for both students and teachers, then they cannot mark the end of learning. Instead, assessments must be followed by high-quality, corrective instruction designed to remedy whatever learning errors the assessment identified (see Guskey, 1997). To charge ahead knowing that students have not learned certain concepts or skills well would be foolish. Teachers must therefore follow their assessments with instructional alternatives that present those concepts in new ways and engage students in different and more appropriate learning experiences. High-quality, corrective instruction is not the same as reteaching, which often consists simply of restating the original explanations louder and more slowly. Instead, the teacher must use approaches that accommodate
Semester: Autumn, 2020 criteria covered in the curriculum. In other words, CRT test scores can be used to determine if the test taker has met program objectives. Pros and Cons The advantages and disadvantages of norm referenced tests vs criterion referenced tests depends on the purpose and objective of testing. Norm referenced tests may measure the acquisition of skills and knowledge from multiple sources such as notes, texts and syllabi. Criterion referenced tests measure performance on specific concepts and are often used in a pre-test / post-test format. These tests can also be used to determine if curriculum goals have been met. The content of NRT is much broader and superficial than the content measured by CRT. Differing Methods of Test Administration Norm referenced tests must be administrated in a standardized format, while criterion referenced tests do not necessitate a standard administration. Since norm referenced tests measure the performance of test takers to other test takers, it is essential that testing conditions closely match those of the norm setting test takers. Therefore, the test administration is scripted. This is in sharp contrast to criterion referenced testing administration. Score Reporting and Interpretation Scores are reported differently for criterion referenced and norm referenced tests. Criterion referenced test results are reported in categories or range. For instance, performance may be reported as not proficient, proficient or very proficient. The interpretation of this performance is obvious and directly related to the acquisition of stated curriculum objectives. The reporting of results for a norm referenced test is accomplished by a percentile rank. A test taker who scores in the 95th percentile has performed better than 95% of the individuals taking the test. In general, scoring at the 50th percentile is average and indicates that the test taker has scored better than 50% of the individuals testing. Criterion-referenced tests compare a person’s knowledge or skills against a predetermined standard, learning goal, performance level, or other criterion. With criterion-referenced tests, each person’s performance is compared directly to the standard, without considering how other students perform on the test. Criterion- referenced tests often use “cut scores” to place students into categories such as “basic,” “proficient,” and “advanced.” If you’ve ever been to a carnival or amusement park, think about the signs that read “You must be this tall to ride this ride!” with an arrow pointing to a specific line on a height chart. The line indicated by the arrow functions as the criterion; the ride operator compares each person’s height against it before allowing them to get on the ride. Note that it doesn’t matter how many other people are in line or how tall or short they are; whether or not you’re allowed to get on the ride is determined solely by your height. Even if you’re the tallest person in line, if the top of your head doesn’t reach the line on the height chart, you can’t ride.
Semester: Autumn, 2020 Criterion-referenced assessments work similarly: An individual’s score, and how that score is categorized, is not affected by the performance of other students. In the charts below, you can see the student’s score and performance category (“below proficient”) do not change, regardless of whether they are a top-performing student, in the middle, or a low-performing student. This means knowing a student’s score for a criterion- referenced test will only tell you how that specific student compared in relation to the criterion, but not whether they performed below-average, above-average, or average when compared to their peers. Norm-referenced measures compare a person’s knowledge or skills to the knowledge or skills of the norm group. The composition of the norm group depends on the assessment. For student assessments, the norm group is often a nationally representative sample of several thousand students in the same grade (and sometimes, at the same point in the school year). Norm groups may also be further narrowed by age, English Language Learner (ELL) status, socioeconomic level, race/ethnicity, or many other characteristics. One norm-referenced measure that many families are familiar with is the baby weight growth charts in the pediatrician’s office, which show which percentile a child’s weight falls in. A child in the 50th percentile has an average weight; a child in the 75th percentile weighs more than 75% of the babies in the norm group and the same as or less than the heaviest 25% of babies in the norm group; and a child in the 25th percentile weighs more than 25% of the babies in the norm group and the same as or less than 75% of them. It’s important to note that these norm-referenced measures do not say whether a baby’s birth weight is “healthy” or “unhealthy,” only how it compares with the norm group. For example, a baby who weighed 2,600 grams at birth would be in the 7th percentile, weighing the same as or less than 93% of the babies in the norm group. However, despite the very low percentile, 2,600 grams is classified as a normal or healthy weight for babies born in the United States—a birth weight of 2,500 grams is the cut-off, or criterion, for a child to be considered low weight or at risk. (For the curious, 2,600 grams is about 5 pounds and 12 ounces.) Thus, knowing a baby’s percentile rank for weight can tell you how they compare with their peers, but not if the baby’s weight is “healthy” or “unhealthy.” Norm-referenced assessments work similarly: An individual student’s percentile rank describes their performance in comparison to the performance of students in the norm group, but does not indicate whether or not they met or exceed a specific standard or criterion. In the charts below, you can see that, while the student’s score doesn’t change, their percentile rank does change depending on how well the students in the norm group performed. When the individual is a top-performing student, they have a high percentile rank; when they are a low-performing student, they have a low percentile rank. What we can’t tell from these charts is whether or not the student should be categorized as proficient or below proficient. Q.4 Highlight the importance of mainstreaming at secondary level in our local context with examples. Many students with special needs are placed into a self-contained classroom or multi-classroom program in which they learn alongside peers who have disabilities as well. This is sometimes referred to by the number of student to teaching staff ratio, such as a 12:1:1 classroom environment; 12 students, 1 teaching assistant, 1
Semester: Autumn, 2020 than the rest of the class because of his or her disability. This can lead to resentment and it can also lead to the other students acting out. Weighing the Pros and Cons You’ve looked at the pros and cons. Mainstreaming offers enough of both for those involved to be able to form a clear and informed opinion on what is the right path for a particular student. As stated before, more and more students with special needs are being placed into regular education classes because of a general belief that it is the best placement for them, based on their needs. As with anything, this placement comes with a lot of work for the students, parents, and teachers involved in the process. The IEP team needs to make the decision based on what is best for the student. The decision needs to be carefully thought out, and if the student is mainstreamed, they need to be carefully monitored and also need to make sure that they have all they need to be successful in the mainstream classroom. The pros and cons need to continue to be weighed so that the plan works to the benefit of the student and does not cause a decrease in achieving the academic goals of either the individual or of the other students in the class. Q.5 Which statistics are used to make comparisons under norm reference grading system? Explain with examples. Norm-referenced refers to standardized tests that are designed to compare and rank test takers in relation to one another. Norm-referenced tests report whether test takers performed better or worse than a hypothetical average student, which is determined by comparing scores against the performance results of a statistically selected group of test takers, typically of the same age or grade level, who have already taken the exam. Calculating norm-referenced scores is called the “norming process,” and the comparison group is known as the “norming group.” Norming groups typically comprise only a small subset of previous test takers, not all or even most previous test takers. Test developers use a variety of statistical methods to select norming groups, interpret raw scores, and determine performance levels. Norm-referenced scores are generally reported as a percentage or percentile ranking. For example, a student who scores in the seventieth percentile performed as well or better than seventy percent of other test takers of the same age or grade level, and thirty percent of students performed better (as determined by norming-group scores). Norm-referenced tests often use a multiple-choice format, though some include open-ended, short-answer questions. They are usually based on some form of national standards , not locally determined standards or curricula. IQ tests are among the most well-known norm-referenced tests, as are developmental-screening tests, which are used to identify learning disabilities in young children or determine eligibility for special- education services. A few major norm-referenced tests include the California Achievement Test, Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Stanford Achievement Test, and TerraNova. The following are a few representative examples of how norm-referenced tests and scores may be used:
Semester: Autumn, 2020 To determine a young child’s readiness for preschool or kindergarten. These tests may be designed to measure oral-language ability, visual-motor skills, and cognitive and social development. To evaluate basic reading, writing, and math skills. Test results may be used for a wide variety of purposes, such as measuring academic progress, making course assignments, determining readiness for grade promotion, or identifying the need for additional academic support. To identify specific learning disabilities, such as autism, dyslexia, or nonverbal learning disability, or to determine eligibility for special-education services. To make program-eligibility or college-admissions decisions (in these cases, norm-referenced scores are generally evaluated alongside other information about a student). Scores on SAT or ACT exams are a common example. Norm-Referenced vs. Criterion-Referenced Tests Norm-referenced tests are specifically designed to rank test takers on a “bell curve,” or a distribution of scores that resembles, when graphed, the outline of a bell—i.e., a small percentage of students performing well, most performing average, and a small percentage performing poorly. To produce a bell curve each time, test questions are carefully designed to accentuate performance differences among test takers, not to determine if students have achieved specified learning standards , learned certain material, or acquired specific skills and knowledge. Tests that measure performance against a fixed set of standards or criteria are called criterion- referenced tests. Criterion-referenced test results are often based on the number of correct answers provided by students, and scores might be expressed as a percentage of the total possible number of correct answers. On a norm- referenced exam, however, the score would reflect how many more or fewer correct answers a student gave in comparison to other students. Hypothetically, if all the students who took a norm-referenced test performed poorly, the least-poor results would rank students in the highest percentile. Similarly, if all students performed extraordinarily well, the least-strong performance would rank students in the lowest percentile. It should be noted that norm-referenced tests cannot measure the learning achievement or progress of an entire group of students, but only the relative performance of individuals within a group. For this reason, criterion- referenced tests are used to measure whole-group performance. Reform Norm-referenced tests have historically been used to make distinctions among students, often for the purposes of course placement, program eligibility, or school admissions. Yet because norm-referenced tests are designed to rank student performance on a relative scale—i.e., in relation to the performance of other students—norm- referenced testing has been abandoned by many schools and states in favor of criterion-referenced tests, which measure student performance in relation to common set of fixed criteria or standards. It should be noted that norm-referenced tests are typically not the form of standardized test widely used to comply with state or federal policies—such as the No Child Left Behind Act—that are intended to measure
Semester: Autumn, 2020 The quality of norm-referenced tests is usually high because they are developed by testing experts, piloted, and revised before they are used with students, and they are dependable and stable for what they are designed to measure. Norm-referenced tests can help differentiate students and identify those who may have specific educational needs or deficits that require specialized assistance or learning environments. The tests are an objective evaluation method that can decrease bias or favoritism when making educational decisions. If there are limited places in a gifted and talented program, for example, one transparent way to make the decision is to give every student the same test and allow the highest-scoring students to gain entry. The following are representative of the kinds of arguments typically made by critics of norm-referenced testing: Although testing experts and test developers warn that major educational decisions should not be made on the basis of a single test score, norm-referenced scores are often misused in schools when making critical educational decisions, such as grade promotion or retention, which can have potentially harmful consequences for some students and student groups. Norm-referenced tests encourage teachers to view students in terms of a bell curve, which can lead them to lower academic expectations for certain groups of students, particularly special-needs students, English- language learners , or minority groups. And when academic expectations are consistently lowered year after year, students in these groups may never catch up to their peers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. For a related discussion, see high expectations. Multiple-choice tests—the dominant norm-referenced format—are better suited to measuring remembered facts than more complex forms of thinking. Consequently, norm-referenced tests promote rote learning and memorization in schools over more sophisticated cognitive skills, such as writing, critical reading, analytical thinking, problem solving, or creativity. Overreliance on norm-referenced test results can lead to inadvertent discrimination against minority groups and low-income student populations, both of which tend to face more educational obstacles that non-minority students from higher-income households. For example, many educators have argued that the overuse of norm-referenced testing has resulted in a significant overrepresentation of minority students in special-education programs. On the other hand, using norm-referenced scores to determine placement in gifted and talented programs, or other “enriched” learning opportunities, leads to the underrepresentation of minority and lower-income students in these programs. Similarly, students from higher-income households may have an unfair advantage in the college-admissions process because they can afford expensive test- preparation services. An overreliance on norm-referenced test scores undervalues important achievements, skills, and abilities in favor of the more narrow set of skills measured by the tests.
