Another Look at Low-Stakes Testing
By: Marc Helgesen
I read with interest Stephen M. Ryan’s article on Low-Stakes Testing in the Sept. Think Tank. I do something similar in my own classes. What I do is slightly different but similar enough that I thought the idea was worth sharing.
I agree with Stephen’s points on Spaced Repetition. Something else that seems worth remembering—big, important (high-stakes) tests at the end of each semester may be one of the dumbest ideas ever to come out of academia: Test Week. When we learn something, the information starts off in working memory (AKA short-term memory) in the hippocampus. It is only after it enters long-term memory that is really “learned.” That happens when we sleep. During “test week,” learners often cram for their next test, take the test, and forget everything about that test as they go on to the next one.
Repeat until their well-deserved school vacation. The result—little change in what is remembered (so what is the point of what we are doing?).
I write textbooks. As with many textbook authors, our publisher asks us to provide semester tests. We do that. We also write unit quizzes for each chapter in the books. A couple years ago, we (the author team) started editing those unit quizzes into mini-tests that covered two units each. Each quiz is worth 33 points. Teachers typically cover six units a semester so three mini-tests take care of half the book. It also adds up to 99 points. This can be the total score for the semester (so the tests are high-stakes, but over a long period) or can be combined with other scores (homework, attendance, participation) to reflect whatever the teachers want to emphasize.
The quizzes take about 20 minutes to do. If you have the learners check their own, that is another 15 or 20 minutes (As legendary educator Mary Finocchiaro used to say: “Never do something for the students that they can do themselves.” That seems like a better use of the students’ time (and mine) than taking a full class period twice a year.
These quizzes were working well in the authors’ own classes so, when we were revising the books, we included them in the back as “practice tests.” They are labeled as “practice” but most teachers use them as the real tests. An objection can be made that “the tests are in the book. How can you do that?” Well, that only helps the students if they actually study—kind of the point, isn’t it? Also, much of the practice tests relies on listening, so they can review the answers and content in advance, but the quizzes themselves will check how much they understand.
There was space, so we added a learner-reflection section called, “Think about your learning.” Students rate themselves on their ability to use the language and functions in the units. Learners generate their own scores. That section also asks, “Are you satisfied with this (score)? “ If they are, great. If not, well, we all know what to do next time.
Finally, there is about an inch (2.5 cm) of space at the bottom of the page. We ask the students for “questions/ comments / feedback for the teacher.” It is common for learners to be asked for feedback but it usually happens at the end of the term, when it is too late for changes to make a difference. One unexpected result: students often write very positive comments about what they like about the class. As a teacher, that is nice to read, especially on test days.
Marc Helgesen, Professor Emeritus, Miyagi Gakuin, Sendai is particularly interested in Positive Psychology in ELT and other aspects of positive education.