no child left behind, common core, and the lost benefits of effective testi

© 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review,

Arkansas State Capitol, May, 20151

No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and the Lost Benefits of Effective Testing

Richard P. PHELPS

2

US Standards & Testing Policy: 1990s

© 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Capitol, May, 2015

The golden age of democratic participation in US education

Education Establishment implements……radical constructivist national math and science standards…”authentic, performance-based” standards/assessments

systems in California, Kentucky, MarylandResults:

- citizens organized in opposition (remember, “Where’s the math?”?)- non-education professors involve selves in standards policy

- testing system fiascos in all 3 states, declines in achievement

Meanwhile, Massachusetts implements traditional standards/assessment program and moves from middle of the pack among states to top

3



The federalization of US standards & testing policy

No Child Left Behind Act deliberation……profoundly unguided legislation uninformed by a world’s and a

century’s worth of research on standards & testing

Education Establishment declares nonexistence of evidence that standards, testing, or accountability have any positive effects

Conservative think tanks are newly staffed by young education policy analysts without training or experience in standards, testing

…who believe the nonexistence myth …still …even now

Test development firms complete transformations from research campuses to competitive businesses- gag orders imposed on the vast majority of US’s most knowledgeable (pro-)testing experts

4



End run around democratic process with Bill Gates’ wallet

Massive funding for lots of deceptive marketing……advocates have learned to say what people want to hear:

higher, deeper, richer, state-led, etc.…euphemisms for the same old radical constructivism and

“authentic, performance-based” testing

Lead writers for the Common Core Standards turn out to be the same folk who brought us the radical constructivist, performance-based fiascos of the 1990s- ACT and College Board loaned them standards writers to do the yeoman’s work

5

US Standards & Testing Policy


Lessons & Outcomes

- Ordinary citizens seem to have more leverage at the state level

- US public debate on education testing now totally one-sided

- What do most of our successful international competitors do?

- multi-level, multi-target “grade span” high-stakes testing

- effect of testing with stakes? …about 2 grade levels of increased achievement over 12 years.



“The Effect of Testing on Student Achievement, 1910-2010”

2012, International Journal of Testing. • analyzed about 700 separate studies

(quantitative, qualitative and surveys), yielding 1,600 effects

• 2,000 other studies were reviewed and found incomplete or inappropriate

• lacking sufficient time and money, hundreds of other studies remain to be reviewed



Number of studies of effects, by methodology type…

Methodology typeNumber of

studiesNumber of

effects

Quantitative 177 640

Surveys and public opinion polls (US & Canada)

247 813

Qualitative 245 245

TOTAL 669 1698



Findings from Phelps (2012):

• Survey study effect sizes average >1.0

• Over 90% of qualitative studies positive

• For quantitative studies, effect sizes vary between 0.55 and 0.88:

+++ testing more frequently

++ testing with stakes

+ testing with feedback

( 0.5 effect size ≈ 1 grade level )

9

John Hattie’s meta-analyses of meta-analyses


10

Student self-assessment/self-gradingResponse to interventionTeacher credibilityProviding formative assessmentsClassroom discussionTeacher clarityFeedbackReciprocal teachingTeacher-student relationships fosteredSpaced vs. mass practice

John Hattie’s list of education interventions, in order of effectiveness ( those with testing )

Concept mappingCooperative vs individualistic learningDirect instructionTactile stimulation programsMastery learningWorked examplesVisual-perception programsPeer tutoringCooperative vs competitive learningPhonics instruction

AccelerationClassroom behavioral techniquesVocabulary programsRepeated reading programsCreativity programsStudent prior achievementSelf-questioning by studentsStudy skillsProblem-solving teachingNot labeling students

Student-centered teachingClassroom cohesionPre-term birth weightPeer influencesClassroom management techniquesOutdoor-adventure programsHome environmentSocio-economic status

1.

11.

21.

31.


11

“Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention.”


12

10 benefits of testing and their applications to educationRoediger, Putnam and Smith

Direct effects of testing

SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 2011.

Retrieval practice during tests enhances retention of the retrieved information (relative to not testing or even to studying) -- the “testing effect”

Repeated retrieval produces knowledge that can be retrieved flexibly and transferred to other situations

On open-ended assessments (e.g., essay tests) retrieval practice induced by tests helps students organize information into a coherent knowledge base.

Repeated retrieval leads to easier retrieval of related information


13


Indirect effects of testing


Students tested frequently study more and with more regularity.

Tests permit students to discover gaps in their knowledge and adjust their study efforts to focus on difficult material.

Students who study after taking a test learn more than if they had not taken a test.

Students who self-test or are tested more frequently in class learn more.


14



Benefit 1: The Testing Effect: Retrieval Aids Later RetentionBenefit 2: Testing Identifies Gaps in KnowledgeBenefit 3: Testing Causes Students to Learn More from the Next Study EpisodeBenefit 4: Testing Produces Better Organization of KnowledgeBenefit 5: Testing Improves Transfer of Knowledge to New ContextsBenefit 6: Testing can Facilitate Retrieval of Material That was not TestedBenefit 7: Testing Improves Metacognitive MonitoringBenefit 8: Testing Prevents Interference from Prior Material when Learning

New MaterialBenefit 9: Testing Provides Feedback to InstructorsBenefit 10: Frequent Testing Encourages Students to Study


15


Most teachers should be testing much more frequently, …with smaller, shorter tests.

Students learn more when they test. But learn best when the tests are “spaced”.

What is the optimal lapse of time between tests?

The best time to test again is just before students start forgetting the information. This time lapse is shorter with discrete material, like mathematics, than with other subjects. Some studies suggest that math students should be tested at least once a week.




No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and the Lost Benefits of Effective Testing

richard {at} nonpartisaneducation {dot} org

no child left behind, common core, and the lost benefits of effective testi

Documents