Friday, October 31, 2014
2. Through his cartoon, Zyglis' argument against standardized testing, he claims that filling a students' mind with standardized testing is like trying to put a square peg (standardized tests) into a round hole (the students' brains), they are unfit for what they retain and learn. He illustrates in his cartoon a little boy with an circle head and an open mine, and then an cult trying to fit a square (of standardized tests) into the boy's brain. He is showing that this type of testing doesn't fit and makes a claim that students should not have to take them, since its not how students learn.
Pros of Standardized Testing by. Colette Kemmerling
http://astro.temple.edu/~mhicks/standardizedtestingpro.html
1. The general argument made by Colette Kemmerling in her article about the pros of standardized testing is that they are effective in showing and predicting a student's "future performance in higher education," as well as in the work force. More specifically, she goes on to explain that standardized tests give the student a better understanding of their levels of knowledge and better feedback of their strengths and weaknesses- giving them room to grow. In one part of the article, Kemmerling explains that standardized testing "motivates teachers to work harder and more effectively," as well as create accountability of the students' performances on the test, in which it will provide for better revision each time a test is created. In conclusion, Kemmerling argues that there are multiple pros for standardized testing that prove its effectiveness.
2. In her argument supporting standardized testing, Colette Kemmerling explains the many pros associated with standard test and their effectiveness as a whole. She gives examples such as the feedback given to each student to help them better understand their strengths and weaknesses, as well as helping teachers to understand what specific things students have a hard time learning and how to adjust the curriculum so that they learn everything 100%. Kemmerling reminds the reader that, "the testing and its feedback send clearer signals to students about what they need to study." These explanations of standardized tests' effectiveness urge Kemmerling's readers to understand the pros of standardized testing and what would be lost if they weren't in effect.
1. The general argument made by Colette Kemmerling in her article about the pros of standardized testing is that they are effective in showing and predicting a student's "future performance in higher education," as well as in the work force. More specifically, she goes on to explain that standardized tests give the student a better understanding of their levels of knowledge and better feedback of their strengths and weaknesses- giving them room to grow. In one part of the article, Kemmerling explains that standardized testing "motivates teachers to work harder and more effectively," as well as create accountability of the students' performances on the test, in which it will provide for better revision each time a test is created. In conclusion, Kemmerling argues that there are multiple pros for standardized testing that prove its effectiveness.
2. In her argument supporting standardized testing, Colette Kemmerling explains the many pros associated with standard test and their effectiveness as a whole. She gives examples such as the feedback given to each student to help them better understand their strengths and weaknesses, as well as helping teachers to understand what specific things students have a hard time learning and how to adjust the curriculum so that they learn everything 100%. Kemmerling reminds the reader that, "the testing and its feedback send clearer signals to students about what they need to study." These explanations of standardized tests' effectiveness urge Kemmerling's readers to understand the pros of standardized testing and what would be lost if they weren't in effect.
Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing by. Derrick Meador
http://teaching.about.com/od/assess/a/Standardized-Testing.htm
1.The general argument made by Derrick Meador in his article, Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing, is not directly stated, but instead implied: that since there are an equal amount of pros and cons for standardized testing, it is difficult for one to determine whether students should take standardized tests since there are an equal amount of claims for both. Specifically, he explains one pro is that standardized testing allows schools, districts, and states across the nation to be compared, and without standardized tests this would be much more difficult and nearly impossible to do. He then explains a con, that standardized testing "evaluates a student’s performance on one particular day" and does not "take into account external factors", for there are many people who simply do not perform well on tests. In these passages, Meador is suggesting that there are good and bad things about standardized testing, with both positive and negative effects, so it is not easily determined whether or not they should be given.
2. In his article listing the pros and cons for standardized testing, Meador lists 5 cons and 5 pros, turning the attention to the balance in the argument that brings a challenge as to whether or not standardized testing should take place, since there are equal arguments for both. Using examples like, standardized testing leads teachers to stick to "teaching the test," which can "hinder the students' overall learning potential." He then counters with the pro that standardized tests are usually paired with a set of established guides to the standards and framework that should be taught throughout the year and that "without this structure a third grade teacher could be teaching the same content. " These two points counter each other, making the decision of whether to have standardized tests or not, more difficult.
1.The general argument made by Derrick Meador in his article, Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing, is not directly stated, but instead implied: that since there are an equal amount of pros and cons for standardized testing, it is difficult for one to determine whether students should take standardized tests since there are an equal amount of claims for both. Specifically, he explains one pro is that standardized testing allows schools, districts, and states across the nation to be compared, and without standardized tests this would be much more difficult and nearly impossible to do. He then explains a con, that standardized testing "evaluates a student’s performance on one particular day" and does not "take into account external factors", for there are many people who simply do not perform well on tests. In these passages, Meador is suggesting that there are good and bad things about standardized testing, with both positive and negative effects, so it is not easily determined whether or not they should be given.
2. In his article listing the pros and cons for standardized testing, Meador lists 5 cons and 5 pros, turning the attention to the balance in the argument that brings a challenge as to whether or not standardized testing should take place, since there are equal arguments for both. Using examples like, standardized testing leads teachers to stick to "teaching the test," which can "hinder the students' overall learning potential." He then counters with the pro that standardized tests are usually paired with a set of established guides to the standards and framework that should be taught throughout the year and that "without this structure a third grade teacher could be teaching the same content. " These two points counter each other, making the decision of whether to have standardized tests or not, more difficult.
SATs Do Not Take the Full Measure Of a High School Student by. Jill Tiefenthaler
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/09/04/sats-do-not-take-the-full-measure-of-a-high-school-student
1. The general argument made by Jill Tiefenthaler in her 2009 article for U.S News entitled, "SATs Do Not Take the Full Measure of a High School Student," is that standardized tests, specifically the SAT, does not measure the complexities of the intelligence of a student, therefore their scores should not be the main determining factor in admission to college. More specifically, she argues that these test scores do not reflect the student's values and they do nothing to suggest what a student might contribute to the "character and vitality of an intellectual community." In this passage, Tiefenthaler is suggesting that there is more to a student and what they will bring to their college than standardized test scores will lead the admissions board to believe; that there are a range of skills that will never show up on test scores, so colleges should stop focusing on them when accepting students into their institutions.
2. In her argument against standardized testing as the main focus of admission boards of colleges, U.S. News writer Jill Tiefenthaler argues that test scores don't reflect a student's values or what they might contribute to the "character and vitality of an intellectual community." Tiefenthaler explains that "integrity, work ethic, open-mindedness, and passion for learning" are all things that don't show up on a student's SAT score, therefore, the score should not be the main focus of determining their acceptance into college. She illustrates that a standardized test score does not show a student's potential or the range of values that colleges should look for in their applicants.
1. The general argument made by Jill Tiefenthaler in her 2009 article for U.S News entitled, "SATs Do Not Take the Full Measure of a High School Student," is that standardized tests, specifically the SAT, does not measure the complexities of the intelligence of a student, therefore their scores should not be the main determining factor in admission to college. More specifically, she argues that these test scores do not reflect the student's values and they do nothing to suggest what a student might contribute to the "character and vitality of an intellectual community." In this passage, Tiefenthaler is suggesting that there is more to a student and what they will bring to their college than standardized test scores will lead the admissions board to believe; that there are a range of skills that will never show up on test scores, so colleges should stop focusing on them when accepting students into their institutions.
2. In her argument against standardized testing as the main focus of admission boards of colleges, U.S. News writer Jill Tiefenthaler argues that test scores don't reflect a student's values or what they might contribute to the "character and vitality of an intellectual community." Tiefenthaler explains that "integrity, work ethic, open-mindedness, and passion for learning" are all things that don't show up on a student's SAT score, therefore, the score should not be the main focus of determining their acceptance into college. She illustrates that a standardized test score does not show a student's potential or the range of values that colleges should look for in their applicants.
What's Wrong With Standardized Tests? (Info-graphic)
1. The general argument made through the info-graphic made by fairest.org is that there are too many things wrong with standardized tests to continue using them, and there are better ways to "evaluate achievement and ability." More specifically, Fairtest.org argues that standardized testing doesn't show enough a students' understanding and "use of complex material." The info-graphic explains that the scores are unreliable due to the varying conditions in which the test is taken. In conclusion, Fairtest.org's belief is that better teacher observation, evidence of the students hard work in the form of documentation, and "performance-based assessment are the most useful" ways to evaluate achievement and ability, instead of imposing standardized tests upon students, when there are numbers things wrong with them.
2. In their argument against standardized testing, Fairtest.org, explains alternatives ways to evaluate a student's achievement and abilities instead of taking standardized tests. They list multiple things that are bad about standardized tests, such as that they are not "fair or helpful evaluation tools" and they don't measure "creative thinking in any field." They remind the reader that the tests do not reflect the current information, due to the fact that the tests are usually outdated to current events. They also explain that those who make the tests are unable to remove all bias when creating the tests because "cultural assumptions built into tests often remain."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)