Let me paint a scene for you: “Line up outside - no talking. When you come inside, put your phone in a basket at the front of the room. Sit down at your seat, not too close to anyone else. A Scantron and a test booklet will be passed out to you shortly - don’t touch them until I say so. You have exactly 50 minutes to complete your 60 question exam. No talking, keep your eyes on your own desk, raise your hand if you have a question. If you must go to the bathroom, you will leave your Scantron and test booklet with me. Tests will be graded by the end of the day and your final course grade will be riding on this exam.”
Does this sound familiar? This scene was based on my final chemistry exam day, but I bet you were imagining a personal experience of your own. When asked to think about my worst assessment, memories of long nights studying, mornings filled with stress, anxiety, and anticipation, and mere moments before high school exams came flooding back into mind. As I was picking through the pile of horrible assessments, trying to give one the title of “Worst Assessment Ever”, I found that these high school exams all had one thing in common: structure. What makes an assessment bad isn’t the teacher, the content, or the preparation. Bad assessments sprout from bad structures and the standard high school exams are notorious for the identical bad structure. The exams lack humanity, personality, individuality, and character. They are dry, unmemorable, and many times downright frustrating. The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines outline three standards for learning: providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2018). When utilized correctly, the goals of these guidelines is to produce learners who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and strategic and goal-directed. I can confidently state that my final chemistry exam did not produce any of the above in myself as a learner. So, what did this exam (and the hundreds like it) accomplish? The teacher was able to tell how well her students could memorize facts, test each student in identical formats, and eliminate any potential bias in her grading. But this exam did not provide differentiation in enegagement, representation, or action and expression and completely missed the mark on UDL Guidelines. My class could have been assessed in limitless other formats (cumulative project, recreate a lesson, fishbowl discussion, real-world applications, etc) which would have more potential to meet the UDL Guidelines, but this teacher defaulted to the same dry exam format. As I have grown in my understanding of the pressures and constraints teachers are placed under, I have learned to give my teachers more grace when critiquing their courses. I want to emphasize that this teacher was a phenomenal professional, and I had many positive learning experiences in her classroom. My previous critiques are focused on the assessment as a product, and not on the teacher as a person. In certain cases, the standard “Scantron and test booklet” exam may be the best possible option for assessment, but even within these rote exams it is important to give students the best possible opportunity for success and learning. Incorporating the aforementioned UDL Guidelines provides this option for students and student success. References: Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (n.d.). UDL Guidelines. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Welcome!Sit back, relax, and enjoy (or don't, up to you)! Archives
August 2023
Categories |