IMplementing Constructivist Assessments

Why change what isn't broken?

Because it is broken.

More and more in the American educational system “objective” standardized tests are heralded as the be-all end-all of child growth and proficiency. The composition of these tests is usually the same: A large number of multiple choice questions, followed by a handful of true or false, fill in the blank, matching, or ranking questions, with one or two short answer questions at the end. These types of tests have served teachers well for a long time for a number of reasons.

1. They are easy to create or readily available. Usually tests are created and distributed by textbook companies to accompany the texts the classes follow, and the answer keys are readily available.
2. They're exceedingly easy to grade. With the introduction of Scantrons and sites like Schoology, grading can almost be 100% automated.
3. It’s tradition. This is what we had for tests, and for a lot of teachers, it is what they expect to use to test.

The problem with these kinds of assessments is that they tend to test how well students can take tests rather than how well students understand and apply the content knowledge. While these tests have functioned alright for many years, they can be improved upon and developed. The issue lies in that students need only retell the information they learned—they are not asked to apply the material or prove connections to other material. For this reason, some professionals have begun to advocate for removing them from the testing repertoire (Brook, 1999). In some cases, experts have even begun discussing the reworking of “high-stakes” standardized assessments to more open ended essay prompts, specifically tested with the GRE (Powers & Fowles, 1999). Traditional exams have served a purpose, but in today’s educational system, where we can acknowledge the pitfalls of the past, serious changes need to be made.

Are you advocating for abolishing multiple choice, true/false and every other style?

No! They serve a valuable purpose in establishing whether or not a student knows a definition or idea. However, I am advocating that that should not make up the majority of any assessment. Many teachers use hybrid style tests that definitely fall into the idea of "constructivist" and include multiple choice. What this project intends to do is make it easier to blend constructivist philosophies with your already existing testing styles!

Brook, J. G & M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms, Merill Prentice Hall.

Powers, D. E., & Fowles, M. E. (1999). Test-takers' judgments of essay prompts: Perceptions and performance. Educational Assessment, 6(1), 3-22.