Let’s just say, theoretically speaking a person writes a test with a minimum standard of oh say 70% for a pass. First writing of the exam receives a mark of 63%, second rewrite gets 65% & on the 3rd rewrite gets 68%. Then claims testing anxiety and gets a 4th rewrite! IMO though, the rising mark for each exam seems to indicate that there is a different underlying issue causing the “anxiety”.
Thoughts?
Testing anxiety is bullshit. In the real world you don’t get extra time.
The person taking the test may not be cut out for the material. i.e.- not everyone is a winner st everything
Clearly not the public school system, they’d just give him the 70% and push him through to the next level…
How can you claim ‘testing anxiety’? Especially after 3 attempts… that’s like saying you’re scared to jump off the cliff into the water, after you’ve done it 3 times. Ridiculous…
“Testing Anxiety” is also called “being nervous about taking a test”.
AKA: normal.
to some extent it depends on what you’re trying to achieve with the test, i think.
let’s say, for instance, that i teach chemistry and i want a formative assessment of what my students know about the periodic table. i’ve got a fairly dyslexic student in my class, and i know that writing a quiz is going to stink for him, and also probably not tell me much about how much he actually knows. so maybe i can let him use a laptop, or have an oral exam or something.
that’s because the crucial thing to be assessed here is his knowledge about the periodic table, not his able to bubble in a scantron card or write clearly. whereas in, say, penmanship class, that’s precisely what is being assessed.
so in that case differentiated assessment seems appropriate insofar as each student gets the chance to show you what they know.
i know some students (or their parents) can abuse accommodations. and that sometimes the test has different goals and different things it seeks to assess.
-mike
It would help to have some history on said student. Without that…
Have seen it many times in the classroom. Some people just don’t perform under pressure. That doesn’t necessarily mean they do not understand the content. I’ve had students able to verbally explain various topics and for reason can’t put pen to paper. If this was my student I would find a way to talk about said topic in a casual setting. That wouldn’t take the place of the test, but I would have no issue bumping that high 60 to a 70 if I felt they deserved it.
to some extent it depends on what you’re trying to achieve with the test, i think.
let’s say, for instance, that i teach chemistry and i want a formative assessment of what my students know about the periodic table. i’ve got a fairly dyslexic student in my class, and i know that writing a quiz is going to stink for him, and also probably not tell me much about how much he actually knows. so maybe i can let him use a laptop, or have an oral exam or something.
that’s because the crucial thing to be assessed here is his knowledge about the periodic table, not his able to bubble in a scantron card or write clearly. whereas in, say, penmanship class, that’s precisely what is being assessed.
so in that case differentiated assessment seems appropriate insofar as each student gets the chance to show you what they know.
i know some students (or their parents) can abuse accommodations. and that sometimes the test has different goals and different things it seeks to assess.
-mike
There’s a difference between “testing anxiety” and having a diagnosable learning disorder that makes the specific testing method inappropriate.
It would help to have some history on said student. Without that…
Have seen it many times in the classroom. Some people just don’t perform under pressure. That doesn’t necessarily mean they do not understand the content. I’ve had students able to verbally explain various topics and for reason can’t put pen to paper. If this was my student I would find a way to talk about said topic in a casual setting. That wouldn’t take the place of the test, but I would have no issue bumping that high 60 to a 70 if I felt they deserved it.
Would you bump it from a 53 to a 70 based on a conversation? From a 42? What about if the student had an IDP that allowed for 30% more time? I agree that more history would be useful here… Also need to know what kind of test - i.e. multiple choice, short answer, essay, etc. Allowing multiple re-writes of a multiple choice test without a plan for improvement creates a “guess-fest” in my experience, especially for millenials / low-motivated students - I see it all the time… the OEs that I work with allow unlimited re-tests until a passing grade is achieved, there is no effort for most people to even attempt to gain knowledge on the subject matter, merely re-guess until it goes green…
I should add that my experience is an adult, mandatory training environment; nobody wants to do the course, just to get “certified”…
Test anxiety is a real thing. Its more than a standard “nervous about the test.” There’s also stupid people who don’t know the material, and liars and whiners who are trying to talk their ways into better grades.
I don’t see where the 63%, 65%, 68% progression is really relevant with regard to whether or not the person gets test anxiety.
Would you bump it from a 53 to a 70 based on a conversation? From a 42? What about if the student had an IDP that allowed for 30% more time? I agree that more history would be useful here… Also need to know what kind of test - i.e. multiple choice, short answer, essay, etc. Allowing multiple re-writes of a multiple choice test without a plan for improvement creates a “guess-fest” in my experience, especially for millenials / low-motivated students - I see it all the time… the OEs that I work with allow unlimited re-tests until a passing grade is achieved, there is no effort for most people to even attempt to gain knowledge on the subject matter, merely re-guess until it goes green…
I should add that my experience is an adult, mandatory training environment; nobody wants to do the course, just to get “certified”…
No, 53-70 delta too large. I would say the 63-70 delta from the first test would still be too large. In my experience, if a student has an IDP/IEP to give 30% more time, they are much more likely to be able to express their thoughts verbally because they are engaged versus staring at a piece of paper. I took the OP’s “writing a test” literally and that it wasn’t multiple choice. Agree with everything you said.
History of said student would ultimately decide outcome.
Test anxiety is a real thing. Its more than a standard “nervous about the test.”
But isn’t part of the reason for testing is to determine who is capable of performing on demand within a certain criteria?
And if you have “testing anxiety” that causes you to fail tests then aren’t you just simply not capable of performing the required criteria, and therefore deserve a failing grade?
Should we allow a different testing criteria for people because they are diagnosed “stupid”?
Stupid is a real thing, too.*
*Feel free to use this opening to call me stupid…
Test anxiety is a real thing. Its more than a standard “nervous about the test.” There’s also stupid people who don’t know the material, and liars and whiners who are trying to talk their ways into better grades.
I don’t see where the 63%, 65%, 68% progression is really relevant with regard to whether or not the person gets test anxiety.
Yes, test anxiety is a diagnosable disorder, but much like “gland or hormone issues” for overweight people, I suspect it is far more rare than the number of students who try to claim it.
But isn’t part of the reason for testing is to determine who is capable of performing on demand within a certain criteria?
Actually, not really. For most courses, testing is simply in place to evaluate whether the student has learned the material, and to give the student wickets to get through along the way to discourage them from simply waiting until the last week to try to cram it all in. “On demand” is not typically one of the objectives of most courses.
No, no, and no?
Testing is based on the understanding of standards. There is no standard that says you must perform under certain demands, i.e. pressure. That’s just the way it’s always been done.
As much as I know you like to think learning is black and white, you can or you can’t, it’s fairly obvious that’s not the case. It’s the lazy way out of making sure everyone has equal opportunity. Such liberal bullshit, right?
No question accommodations are abused though.
But isn’t part of the reason for testing is to determine who is capable of performing on demand within a certain criteria?
Actually, not really. For most courses, testing is simply in place to evaluate whether the student has learned the material, and to give the student wickets to get through along the way to discourage them from simply waiting until the last week to try to cram it all in. “On demand” is not typically one of the objectives of most courses.
I get that, in the grand scheme with most tests, giving someone extra time isn’t really an issue (my wife got extra time on tests in college and grad school after being diagnosed with fairly strong dyslexia).
My issue is with testing for ability to perform certain tasks that may be required for employment, etc.
For example, if I have a job that requires someone to jump over fences while carrying bags of cement on their backs it’s immaterial that a person knows how to do it if they are a quadriplegic.
Or an ER doctor that might have to make quic decisions under a high anmount of stress with little sleep that can determine whether someone lives or dies…that’s a person who shouldn’t be given extra time on tests because of “anxiety.”
If you’re testing someone’s knowledge or Pleistocene era pterocharya fossils then I don’t give a fuck how much time it takes to finish a test.
Testing is based on the understanding of standards.
If testing criteria is different for different people there is no “standard.”
There is no standard that says you must perform under certain demands, i.e. pressure.
Oh yes there is. See my example above of an ER doctor. There are plenty of careers that, to get to be in that career you have take tests along the way, where the work is done under extreme pressure.
I don’t want people who can’t deal with taking a test in those positions.
As much as I know you like to think learning is black and white…
I have never implied any such thing.
What I’m saying is that if you a certain test criteria it should be, in most cases, the same for everyone.
If some people can’t finish on time because of “anxiety” then everyone should be afforded the same amount of extra time. In the end it wouldn’t matter that “normal” people get extra time because they won’t using it.
Such liberal bullshit, right?
Another thing you’re attributing to me that I’m not saying.
I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with anything you said here and without more background on OP’s question, you could very well be correct. However, I think it’s more likely the OP is addressing content in a typical classroom setting.
Testing is based on the understanding of standards.
If testing criteria is different for different people there is no “standard.”
There is no standard that says you must perform under certain demands, i.e. pressure.
Oh yes there is. See my example above of an ER doctor. There are plenty of careers that, to get to be in that career you have take tests along the way, where the work is done under extreme pressure.
I don’t want people who can’t deal with taking a test in those positions.
As much as I know you like to think learning is black and white…
I have never implied any such thing.
What I’m saying is that if you a certain test criteria it should be, in most cases, the same for everyone.
If some people can’t finish on time because of “anxiety” then everyone should be afforded the same amount of extra time. In the end it wouldn’t matter that “normal” people get extra time because they won’t using it.
Such liberal bullshit, right?
Another thing you’re attributing to me that I’m not saying.
It’s “standards” and yes, they are very clearly defined. In fact, the current standard you are covering must be displayed in the classroom. It’s the same for everyone no matter what accommodations they have.
IT comes down to context of OP’s question. We are all assuming it is in a typical classroom setting. You are expanding it to include quite the range of scenarios.
I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with anything you said here and without more background on OP’s question, you could very well be correct. However, I think it’s more likely the OP is addressing content in a typical classroom setting.
I understand that. What I’m saying is that you should set a standard and everyone should be held to the same standard.
If it’s determined that the test standard is “unfair” to certain individuals then change the standard for everyone or chalk it to “life is unfair” and move on. If you can’t handle the stress of taking tests then maybe test taking (academe) just isn’t for you.
In some cases, like physical requirement for certain tasks, you obviously (obvious to me, anyway) can’t do that.
If your test is “can you I do 10 pull-ups in 30 seconds?” and some dude is a triathlete and needs 10 hours to do 10 pull-ups he should just accept that he fails the test.