I believe that we should use more criterion-referenced tests because as educators we understand that students learn at different levels and in different ways. It is unfair to compare one student’s performance to the performance of other students when all students are not the same. In a standardized testing society, not all students can perform well on those types of tests. By using the norm-referenced measurement students like this would unfairly be judged based on their inability to take those types of test thus putting them possibly under the “average”. Student assessment should be directly aligned with the particular instructional objectives of that student.
I totally agree with Allison. Criterion-referenced tests give a much better picture of the skills mastered by individual students. However, the reality of standardized measurements of student abilities is the "norm" and therefore, we must adhere to a curriculum that uses norm-referenced testing since state and federal guidelines call for such evaluation of student progress. I do believe that as individual classroom teachers we should strive to use criterion-referenced tests as much as possible to do a comprehensive evaluation of a student's mastery level.
I feel that is best for student learning if we use criterion reference measurement. I really do not understand what good comparing students does in regards to norm referenced measurement. I that really does not tell the educator, the student, or the parents how the student has mastered. I think we need to be aware and mindful of the levels of students and what they accomplish and learn while they are in our hands. I feel the criterion referenced allows us to see what the student has learned and paints a true picture for everyone involved in the students education.
I believe that criterion references tests are most beneficial to use in a class setting. These will tell the teacher, students and parents if the child is mastering the objectives set forth. With norm referenced testing, even if all students are successful(including high to average success), some students will be labeled at the bottom of the bunch. This, in my opinion would be detrimental to the goals of teaching and to the self esteem of the learner.
I also agree that we should use criterion-referenced testing. With NRT, in order for some students to be at the top, some alwys have to be at the bottom to balance it out. I do not feel that NRT really gives an accurate measure of what the student has or has not learned. Clay Moran
Criterion-reference testing is most beneficial in schools. These tests measure what the individual student has achieved. It may also help identify individual weaknesses the student may have. I am constantly reminding my students that they need to be worried about themselves and not those around them. This doesn't seem to be the case with norm-reference tests.
I agree with everyone else; we should use criterion-referenced testing to evaluate student performance. NRT's have too many negative attributes and can be unfair to certain groups of students. We should be testing students on the content we are teaching. The main purpose of NRTs is to rank and sort students, not to determine whether students have learned the material they have been taught.
Teachers should use more criterion-referenced test for their students. Student performance is compared to instructional objectives instead of comparing individual students with a particular group as in norm-referenced tests. Criterion-referenced tests are a good tool to evaluate whether each individual student has achieved mastery of intended objectives. This type of measurement focuses on each child. Therefore, teachers can determine if each student has mastered the instructional goals and be able to identify the needs of each student to remediate/reteach him.
While norm-referenced tests are the "norm" in our schools, criterion-referenced tests give educators a much clearer understanding of where is child is performing on an individual level. Assessment needs to be aligned with objectives set for each student. Data from these tests can be used to follow a student and track individual abilities, not just how they perform compared to others, but assessment of true progress in their individual educational journey.
SO far I agree with everyone. We should use more criterion-referenced tests because we understand that students learn at different levels so wouln't it be smart to use criterion-referenced tests. These types of test will help everyone understand if the child is mastering the material. Not only that but the data from the criterion-referenced tests to track student abilities.
The question asks should we use more of one than the other. I agree with others that if you have to choose one over the other, criterion-referenced tests seem the way to go. But I caution, that there is a place for norm-referenced achievement and ability testing. I am concerned that if we only assess students on the instructional objectives, we may limit the information that we are finding out about our students. There is a place for norm-referenced testing. We use it for special education and gifted testing in my county. At times, we need assessments to be more difficult that can challenge learners. Sometimes we do need to rank students to the performances of other students. Sometimes it is necessary to get that percentile rank and standard score. There are times where we need to sort students. A few years ago when my county stopped paying for a norm-referenced test for our 4th graders....a principal told me that we were going to be missing a "piece of each child's puzzle". We can assess students and compare students in individual schools, counties and even states (SOLS)...but sometimes it is important to see that national ranking as well. I think we need both.
Criterion reference testing should be used more often to see what the individual student has learned. It would be difficult to transition to criterion reference testing since so much of our testing is based on norm referenced testing. Norm reference testing will continue to be the normal because we have competition for scholarships, admissions, and honorary societies. We should be using criterion reference testing in our classrooms so that we can be sure that students are mastering the objectives.
I believe that in the class setting, criterion-referenced test are the most beneficial. It allows teachers to see if students are mastering the curriculum. I think for classroom purposes it it more advantageous to note where students are in relationship to the objectives presented rather than how they compare to other students. However, I do feel that there are times when norm-referenced test can also offer valuable information about student performance.
Criterion-referenced tests seem to always be the best choice when school wants to know what students have mastered. My division has created its own quarterly assessments given in grades 2-8 in all core academic areas, and these tests are criterion-referenced. The data analysis information from these tests tells us exactly which benchmarks a student has passed, which benchmarks a grade level is achieving well in, and also as a division. It gives the teachers the opportunity evaluate instructional strategies based upon each benchmark. I would be interested to see how spread of student scores would pan out if the tests were norm-referenced. It might give a different perspective on which students need the most remediation. Can a test created for criterion-referenced purposes by used also as a norm referenced test? I guess we’d never be able to give the test enough times to establish the norm, and it is certainly not standardized.
Everyone seems to agree that CRT is the most fair and accurate format, and I certainly agree. Allison states the argument very well; unfortunately the soceity we live in places some limits on this format of testing. I'd simply add that CRT seems, in my opinion, to be what would be best for the students, and it seems I've heard that mentioned somewhere in our program.
I think schools should use more criterion-referenced tests because of the individual learning style and ability. I do think norm-referenced tests help guide curriculum in the larger scheme of things. We, as a division or state, need to know how we rank against the others. That is useful information. But when you look to the student and what assessment will benefit him/her, it is the criterion-referenced tests.
I agree that criterion-referenced tests are the best assessment to help drive instruction. I also think there is a place for norm-referenced assessments. I don't think it is the most relevent when you use assessment to evaluate instruction.
As Diane said, if you must choose to use one type of measurement over the other, criterion-referenced is the way to go. I do not believe in throwing all of your efforts behind one assessment tool, but I agree that criterion-referenced measurements are the best way to see if students are indeed understanding the curriculum.
Much like everyone else I feel that the criterion referenced test is the better way to go. We all understand as educators that our students are different and master topics at different rates. I think criterion referenced tests allow the teacher, parent, and student a better way see where the student is and what the focus needs to be. I don't like the idea of comparing students to each other because I feel that my job is to see how far I can bring the students in my class, not see how they compare to others.
I agree with most that criterion-referenced tests should be used to determine what a student has achieved. Within any given classroom there is a wide range of ability levels and factors that afftect a students performance on a standardized test. I don't feel its appropriate to compare children on a norm-referenced test becasue not everyone is the same as Allison mentioned. Students should be assessed in relationg to the objective or goal that they are being asked to master.
No longer can teachers teach as they did in the past. Teaching styles need to change based on student needs in order for them to be successful. I agree with others who state that this must occur. This chapter highlighted the styles and made me aware of how as an administrator I will need to make sure that teachers are using the best style for the students that they have in their classrooms.
Criterion-referenced tests are more valuable to schools since our money is tied to how our students perform on the SOL tests which are based on a set of criteria.
Norm-referenced tests will continue to be used to evaluate how students compare to other students. Aptitude tests are important as college entrance exams and these NRTs are the best way to compare a large pool of applicants. However,not all students take college entrance exams.
The message we are receiving in the public schools is that criterion-referenced tests are tied to funding. We must be completely focused on tests such as the SOLs which are taken by all students.
Criterion-referenced tests for documenting basic skills - either the students got it or they didn't. Norm-referenced tests for screening/entrance exams - when you are actively trying to discriminate (in both senses of the word?) by ability.
I fully believe that criterion-referenced tests are more effective. For one, we are are preparing our students to face a very high-stakes test. That test is a criterion-based test, so that's common sense.
Why would you use a norm-referenced test? I mean why do students need to be ranked? I hear the example of selecting "gifted" students (isn't it time we change that label??) and college entrance exams, but I have a hard time thinking of any other reasons for norm-referenced testing.
Criterion-referenced tests are an excellent tool to use when assessing the learning of students. REgarding the assessment of a student's needs in comparison to those of other students, the norm-referenced tests provide a tool for gauging needs of students in order to master skills assessed through criterion-referenced tests. Criterion-referenced are a tool to be used frequently, whereas norm-referenced use should be limited.
I see little reason to use norm-referenced testing within the school setting. We need to move beyond blaming and labeling children for their lack of success. Criterion referenced testing allows us to reflect upon our teaching practices and improve our instruction.
I think we should use more criterion-referneced tests as opposed to norm-refernced tests. Our goal is to promote the success of each child, not compare them to other children and use that comparison to evaluate their success. Norm referenced test will always have unsuccessful students by their very nature.
I believe that we should be using more criterion-refrenced testing. However, we treat tests such as the SOL tests, the SATs and other tests as a norm-refrenced test instead of criterion refrenced testing. We test for one thing and then compare the results as if the test were norm-refrenced. The students who missed a certain type of question on the SOL test are compared with others who missed entirely different questions on the SOL. So we treat the SOL as a norm-refrenced test instead of a criterion-refrenced test that it is.
I too believe that criterion referenced tests provide educators with best reflection of individual student learning. In reality it makes no difference to a students learning if they preform better or worse than another student. In order to grow the student must build upon his/her own level.
I think both types of testing have their place in our public educational system. I do realize that criterion based tests acknowledge students mastery on certain topics. These tests also giver a clearer image of the individual student and what they have accomplished. If I had a choice I would say that schools should do more criterion-referenced testing. We also have to acknowledge the importance of norm referenced testing. State testing guidelines vary greatly from state to state and norm-referenced testing gives us the best snapshot of how our students fair against the national average.
As a special educator, I firmly agree that student assessment should be directly aligned with specific instructional objectives for that student. Students with learning disabilities have an individualized education plan for a reason. I believe it is unfair to these students to require them to perform as well as non-disabled students in academic areas that is beyond thier cognitive ability.
I favor norm-referenced tests that have been augmented to align with a state’s adopted standards of learning. States wanting to use a norm-referenced assessment at a particular grade must augment that assessment with additional items that allow for the accurate measurement of the depth and breadth of the standards. Additionally, the assessment must state student results in terms of the state’s student academic achievement standards—terms easily understood by its stakeholders.
One thing that has always bothered me about SOL testing is the process the VDOE uses called "weighting." They don't publicize it, but one of the reasons that we have to wait for scores to come in over the summer is that they have to have enough tests submitted for scoring so that they can compare the results against those from previous years' test forms. They use some statistical black magic to determine if the current test form was significantly harder or easier, and then actually adjust the raw passing score if necessary! So, even though the Test Blueprint says that a passing score on a test is 34 items correct out of 50, some years that number might be 33 or 35. I definitely don't understand all of the pychometrics involved in this, but that makes me very uncomfortable, since our SOL tests are not supposed to be norm-referenced...
I agree that we should use more criterion-referenced tests than norm-referenced but also agree with Diane that there are many situations where norm-referenced is necessary.
I agree with what everyone else has said - that we should use more criterion referenced tests in schools. Standardized tests don't measure apples to apples and I would much rather have data that allows me to see the skills mastered by my student. NCLB is not going away but maybe it can be amended so we can used criterion tests instead of norm-referenced tests to really see what our students are learning.
I believe that schools should use more criterion-referenced tests. Criterion-referenced tests can tell us exactly how an individual students is learning or what they know. We can individualize instruction more with data from the criterion referenced tests rather than comparing students to each other or using state assessments to categorize our kids. We say we want to individualize instruction, but we look at the wrong assessments in order to plan our instruction.
37 comments:
I believe that we should use more criterion-referenced tests because as educators we understand that students learn at different levels and in different ways. It is unfair to compare one student’s performance to the performance of other students when all students are not the same. In a standardized testing society, not all students can perform well on those types of tests. By using the norm-referenced measurement students like this would unfairly be judged based on their inability to take those types of test thus putting them possibly under the “average”. Student assessment should be directly aligned with the particular instructional objectives of that student.
I totally agree with Allison. Criterion-referenced tests give a much better picture of the skills mastered by individual students. However, the reality of standardized measurements of student abilities is the "norm" and therefore, we must adhere to a curriculum that uses norm-referenced testing since state and federal guidelines call for such evaluation of student progress. I do believe that as individual classroom teachers we should strive to use criterion-referenced tests as much as possible to do a comprehensive evaluation of a student's mastery level.
I feel that is best for student learning if we use criterion reference measurement. I really do not understand what good comparing students does in regards to norm referenced measurement. I that really does not tell the educator, the student, or the parents how the student has mastered. I think we need to be aware and mindful of the levels of students and what they accomplish and learn while they are in our hands. I feel the criterion referenced allows us to see what the student has learned and paints a true picture for everyone involved in the students education.
I believe that criterion references tests are most beneficial to use in a class setting. These will tell the teacher, students and parents if the child is mastering the objectives set forth. With norm referenced testing, even if all students are successful(including high to average success), some students will be labeled at the bottom of the bunch. This, in my opinion would be detrimental to the goals of teaching and to the self esteem of the learner.
I also agree that we should use criterion-referenced testing. With NRT, in order for some students to be at the top, some alwys have to be at the bottom to balance it out. I do not feel that NRT really gives an accurate measure of what the student has or has not learned.
Clay Moran
Criterion-reference testing is most beneficial in schools. These tests measure what the individual student has achieved. It may also help identify individual weaknesses the student may have. I am constantly reminding my students that they need to be worried about themselves and not those around them. This doesn't seem to be the case with norm-reference tests.
I agree with everyone else; we should use criterion-referenced testing to evaluate student performance. NRT's have too many negative attributes and can be unfair to certain groups of students. We should be testing students on the content we are teaching. The main purpose of NRTs is to rank and sort students, not to determine whether students have learned the material they have been taught.
Teachers should use more criterion-referenced test for their students. Student performance is compared to instructional objectives instead of comparing individual students with a particular group as in norm-referenced tests. Criterion-referenced tests are a good tool to evaluate whether each individual student has achieved mastery of intended objectives. This type of measurement focuses on each child. Therefore, teachers can determine if each student has mastered the instructional goals and be able to identify the needs of each student to remediate/reteach him.
While norm-referenced tests are the "norm" in our schools, criterion-referenced tests give educators a much clearer understanding of where is child is performing on an individual level. Assessment needs to be aligned with objectives set for each student. Data from these tests can be used to follow a student and track individual abilities, not just how they perform compared to others, but assessment of true progress in their individual educational journey.
SO far I agree with everyone. We should use more criterion-referenced tests because we understand that students learn at different levels so wouln't it be smart to use criterion-referenced tests. These types of test will help everyone understand if the child is mastering the material. Not only that but the data from the criterion-referenced tests to track student abilities.
The question asks should we use more of one than the other. I agree with others that if you have to choose one over the other, criterion-referenced tests seem the way to go. But I caution, that there is a place for norm-referenced achievement and ability testing. I am concerned that if we only assess students on the instructional objectives, we may limit the information that we are finding out about our students. There is a place for norm-referenced testing. We use it for special education and gifted testing in my county. At times, we need assessments to be more difficult that can challenge learners. Sometimes we do need to rank students to the performances of other students. Sometimes it is necessary to get that percentile rank and standard score. There are times where we need to sort students. A few years ago when my county stopped paying for a norm-referenced test for our 4th graders....a principal told me that we were going to be missing a "piece of each child's puzzle". We can assess students and compare students in individual schools, counties and even states (SOLS)...but sometimes it is important to see that national ranking as well. I think we need both.
Criterion reference testing should be used more often to see what the individual student has learned. It would be difficult to transition to criterion reference testing since so much of our testing is based on norm referenced testing. Norm reference testing will continue to be the normal because we have competition for scholarships, admissions, and honorary societies. We should be using criterion reference testing in our classrooms so that we can be sure that students are mastering the objectives.
I believe that in the class setting, criterion-referenced test are the most beneficial. It allows teachers to see if students are mastering the curriculum. I think for classroom purposes it it more advantageous to note where students are in relationship to the objectives presented rather than how they compare to other students. However, I do feel that there are times when norm-referenced test can also offer valuable information about student performance.
Criterion-referenced tests seem to always be the best choice when school wants to know what students have mastered. My division has created its own quarterly assessments given in grades 2-8 in all core academic areas, and these tests are criterion-referenced. The data analysis information from these tests tells us exactly which benchmarks a student has passed, which benchmarks a grade level is achieving well in, and also as a division. It gives the teachers the opportunity evaluate instructional strategies based upon each benchmark. I would be interested to see how spread of student scores would pan out if the tests were norm-referenced. It might give a different perspective on which students need the most remediation. Can a test created for criterion-referenced purposes by used also as a norm referenced test? I guess we’d never be able to give the test enough times to establish the norm, and it is certainly not standardized.
Everyone seems to agree that CRT is the most fair and accurate format, and I certainly agree. Allison states the argument very well; unfortunately the soceity we live in places some limits on this format of testing. I'd simply add that CRT seems, in my opinion, to be what would be best for the students, and it seems I've heard that mentioned somewhere in our program.
I think schools should use more criterion-referenced tests because of the individual learning style and ability. I do think norm-referenced tests help guide curriculum in the larger scheme of things. We, as a division or state, need to know how we rank against the others. That is useful information. But when you look to the student and what assessment will benefit him/her, it is the criterion-referenced tests.
I agree that criterion-referenced tests are the best assessment to help drive instruction. I also think there is a place for norm-referenced assessments. I don't think it is the most relevent when you use assessment to evaluate instruction.
The last post was from pbetteken
As Diane said, if you must choose to use one type of measurement over the other, criterion-referenced is the way to go. I do not believe in throwing all of your efforts behind one assessment tool, but I agree that criterion-referenced measurements are the best way to see if students are indeed understanding the curriculum.
Much like everyone else I feel that the criterion referenced test is the better way to go. We all understand as educators that our students are different and master topics at different rates. I think criterion referenced tests allow the teacher, parent, and student a better way see where the student is and what the focus needs to be. I don't like the idea of comparing students to each other because I feel that my job is to see how far I can bring the students in my class, not see how they compare to others.
I agree with most that criterion-referenced tests should be used to determine what a student has achieved. Within any given classroom there is a wide range of ability levels and factors that afftect a students performance on a standardized test. I don't feel its appropriate to compare children on a norm-referenced test becasue not everyone is the same as Allison mentioned. Students should be assessed in relationg to the objective or goal that they are being asked to master.
No longer can teachers teach as they did in the past. Teaching styles need to change based on student needs in order for them to be successful. I agree with others who state that this must occur. This chapter highlighted the styles and made me aware of how as an administrator I will need to make sure that teachers are using the best style for the students that they have in their classrooms.
Criterion-referenced tests are more valuable to schools since our money is tied to how our students perform on the SOL tests which are based on a set of criteria.
Norm-referenced tests will continue to be used to evaluate how students compare to other students. Aptitude tests are important as college entrance exams and these NRTs are the best way to compare a large pool of applicants. However,not all students take college entrance exams.
The message we are receiving in the public schools is that criterion-referenced tests are tied to funding. We must be completely focused on tests such as the SOLs which are taken by all students.
Criterion-referenced tests for documenting basic skills - either the students got it or they didn't. Norm-referenced tests for screening/entrance exams - when you are actively trying to discriminate (in both senses of the word?) by ability.
I fully believe that criterion-referenced tests are more effective. For one, we are are preparing our students to face a very high-stakes test. That test is a criterion-based test, so that's common sense.
Why would you use a norm-referenced test? I mean why do students need to be ranked? I hear the example of selecting "gifted" students (isn't it time we change that label??) and college entrance exams, but I have a hard time thinking of any other reasons for norm-referenced testing.
Criterion-referenced tests are an excellent tool to use when assessing the learning of students. REgarding the assessment of a student's needs in comparison to those of other students, the norm-referenced tests provide a tool for gauging needs of students in order to master skills assessed through criterion-referenced tests.
Criterion-referenced are a tool to be used frequently, whereas norm-referenced use should be limited.
I see little reason to use norm-referenced testing within the school setting. We need to move beyond blaming and labeling children for their lack of success. Criterion referenced testing allows us to reflect upon our teaching practices and improve our instruction.
I think we should use more criterion-referneced tests as opposed to norm-refernced tests. Our goal is to promote the success of each child, not compare them to other children and use that comparison to evaluate their success. Norm referenced test will always have unsuccessful students by their very nature.
I believe that we should be using more criterion-refrenced testing. However, we treat tests such as the SOL tests, the SATs and other tests as a norm-refrenced test instead of criterion refrenced testing. We test for one thing and then compare the results as if the test were norm-refrenced. The students who missed a certain type of question on the SOL test are compared with others who missed entirely different questions on the SOL. So we treat the SOL as a norm-refrenced test instead of a criterion-refrenced test that it is.
I too believe that criterion referenced tests provide educators with best reflection of individual student learning. In reality it makes no difference to a students learning if they preform better or worse than another student. In order to grow the student must build upon his/her own level.
I think both types of testing have their place in our public educational system. I do realize that criterion based tests acknowledge students mastery on certain topics. These tests also giver a clearer image of the individual student and what they have accomplished. If I had a choice I would say that schools should do more criterion-referenced testing. We also have to acknowledge the importance of norm referenced testing. State testing guidelines vary greatly from state to state and norm-referenced testing gives us the best snapshot of how our students fair against the national average.
As a special educator, I firmly agree that student assessment should be directly aligned with specific instructional objectives for that student. Students with learning disabilities have an individualized education plan for a reason. I believe it is unfair to these students to require them to perform as well as non-disabled students in academic areas that is beyond thier cognitive ability.
I favor norm-referenced tests that have been augmented to align with a state’s adopted standards of learning. States wanting to use a norm-referenced assessment at a particular grade must augment that assessment with additional items that allow for the accurate measurement of the depth and breadth of the standards. Additionally, the assessment must state student results in terms of the state’s student academic achievement standards—terms easily understood by its stakeholders.
One thing that has always bothered me about SOL testing is the process the VDOE uses called "weighting." They don't publicize it, but one of the reasons that we have to wait for scores to come in over the summer is that they have to have enough tests submitted for scoring so that they can compare the results against those from previous years' test forms. They use some statistical black magic to determine if the current test form was significantly harder or easier, and then actually adjust the raw passing score if necessary! So, even though the Test Blueprint says that a passing score on a test is 34 items correct out of 50, some years that number might be 33 or 35. I definitely don't understand all of the pychometrics involved in this, but that makes me very uncomfortable, since our SOL tests are not supposed to be norm-referenced...
I agree that we should use more criterion-referenced tests than norm-referenced but also agree with Diane that there are many situations where norm-referenced is necessary.
I agree with what everyone else has said - that we should use more criterion referenced tests in schools. Standardized tests don't measure apples to apples and I would much rather have data that allows me to see the skills mastered by my student. NCLB is not going away but maybe it can be amended so we can used criterion tests instead of norm-referenced tests to really see what our students are learning.
I believe that schools should use more criterion-referenced tests. Criterion-referenced tests can tell us exactly how an individual students is learning or what they know. We can individualize instruction more with data from the criterion referenced tests rather than comparing students to each other or using state assessments to categorize our kids. We say we want to individualize instruction, but we look at the wrong assessments in order to plan our instruction.
Post a Comment