I have been thinking a lot about the ever exciting testing debate, and not just those fun standardized tests. Instead, I've been evaluating the traditional test that many students and teachers are familiar with as a summative assessment tool. You know the type: some multiple choice, a handful of matching, perhaps some fill in the blanks, and a few short responses. Are these the types of assessment we truly want students to work towards? Recall? The lowest tier in Bloom's Taxonomy? We've all seen the anxiety on the students' faces and in their demeanor. I really have to wonder if this is best practice, but more importantly, what's best for students. Stephanie Harvey always speaks to the huge difference in always having the "answers", versus asking all the right "questions". In my opinion the traditional classroom test is only playing to knowing all the answers. Again, this is strictly assessing which students remember the information just long enough to fill in a few blanks before they forget it all. In order for students to turn information into KNOWLEDGE, they must filter the content into a structure that matters in their own lives. Isn't that the mission of all teachers? If so, then why do we, as a profession, continue to resort to such archaic means of assessing student learning? I'm happy to report I think I have the answer: it's easy! It's a cop out! It's also what most students/teachers/parents/pundits/administrators are used to and expect. I think it's time for a change. Why not instead work on building a structure of active literacy that asks students to ask the right questions? In regard to assessment, students can then work in student-led inquiry circles to show their understanding of a topic. This type of learning contains all of Bloom's cognitive tiers of learning while providing students with a cross-disciplinary outlet to build meaning of what is being taught.
