As the most common method of determining an individual’s aptitude or skill, standardized tests are nothing new. This simple method of choosing the best from the worst has been used for generations, and despite some flaws, the method is sound enough to have been used for this long.
But lately, there have been doubts expressed about these methods.
And now the question is, should we continue to use standardized testing? Recently, there has been some controversy over the use of standardized tests in the classroom among other places, where some claim their abilities are degraded or they are otherwise impaired by this method of testing. Personally, I’m not sure how much I agree with this- they do seem to do their job, even though they’re no fun- and so I decided to investigate.
Standardized vs. Non-Standardized Tests
Before deciding on the advantages or otherwise, it’s probably best to clearly define what is being investigated first. Standardized tests are essentially examinations given to large groups of people (or anything that is to be ranked, really) who all go through virtually the same test under the same conditions. It is meant to be equal for all, and to provide each test-taker with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge in a certain field.
A non-standardized test is more flexible by definition, as it allows each test-taker to undergo potentially different examinations in different conditions. The most clear drawback to this method is the difficulty in comparing different individual’s test results, yet many find they are able to most clearly demonstrate their knowledge in conditions that are not the strict ones of a standardized test, but rather the more relaxed and accommodating environment of the non-standardized test. Even so, there are still a few drawbacks to this testing system that make it not as equal as one might expect.
Perhaps it’s easiest to break it down…
Standardized Testing
| PROS | CONS |
|
|
Non-Standardized Testing
| PROS | CONS |
|
|
My verdict
The reality is, it’s a lot more efficient for education systems to employ the use of standardized tests rather than unstandardized tests. After all, there are many students and only so many staff who can sit down and regulate different tests for each student, and fairly comparing their results among that of other students would be another time-consuming issue. In this world of ever-increasing competition, skill in performing standardized tests is becoming essential for success in schooling and life in general, and despite the drawbacks, we have to realize that the benefits and overall practicality of standardized testing makes it the prevalent method of assessing people’s knowledge.
However, it is becoming more and more widely recognized that while standardized testing is useful in many aspects, it does have its limitations. For this reason, a lot of professional organizations examine individuals not only in their standardized test results, but also by conducting interviews and allowing people to express their knowledge by other testing methods. This is highly beneficial in allowing all a chance to demonstrate what they know, and I believe these accommodations within a society that uses standardized tests for the most part is useful.
Even schools are beginning to take this idea into consideration, and have evolved over time to incorporate more methods of testing than just the multiple-choice exams with which we are all familiar. For example, there has been a recent change to offer extra time to all students who feel they need it in their high school examinations (as they are doing this year for not only grade 10 and 11 finals, but also for diplomas). These sorts of adaptations show that society isn’t as judgemental as some might think when it comes to testing, and I personally feel these flexibilities combined with the standardized testing method yield the most efficient, most fair evaluations that could realistically work within the current education system.
In the end, each method seems to have its place. Sometimes, the efficiency and fairness of a standardized test is required in order to realistically compare vast numbers of test-takers, and a non-standardized test would only create unfairness and chaos in sorting the results. On the other hand, there are times when a test-taker’s creativity or other abstract idea is to be tested, and to create a solid standardized test for this would not only be difficult, but its results would virtually be meaningless. In this sort of situation, it is best to allow each test-taker to present what it is they can do by their own means, and as long as there isn’t a vast amount of test-takers to go through, the non-standardized testing method is far more realistic and effective in determining creativity. In the end, we need both types of tests, and as long as society is willing to be fair in accommodating individuals’ needs while using standardized tests in order to be efficient, I believe these testing methods will continue to be used in future generations.
This article was inspired by this TEDEd video. If you haven’t already, definitely give it a watch!
