Bridging the Gap Between Testing and Technology

¶ … Bridging the Gap between Testing and Technology in Schools," authors Michael Russell and Walter Haney look at the potential effects of technology in schools on testing and assessment. The authors begin by stating that while many schools are emphasizing technological proficiency, state assessment methods often still make students take tests on paper. The writers argue that these written tests skew the results by undermining the performance of students who are used to digital technology.

For the authors, taking a test on paper is like forcing modern accountants to take an accounting test using only an abacus. The authors cite examples from several states and schools to support their argument. In Ohio, for example, students need to pass the Ohio Proficiency Test as a requirement for high school graduation. These Ohio students are just a small percentage students made to take such "high-stakes" tests across the country every year.

Researchers worry that these paper-and-pencil tests show misleading information regarding the abilities of students who are more used to taking tests on computers. To see if these previous studies and assertions hold merit, Russell and Haney conducted their research at high-tech school in Worcester, MA. In this school, standardized tests showed that scores in writing declined, even though students wrote more often on their computers after English classes.

The authors conducted a randomized experiment, administering the same tests to a control group on a computer and to another group of students who had no access to computers and allied technology like spell checking. The answers that were handwritten were then transcribed to the computer, so the researchers would not be able to distinguish between the two groups. Russell and Haney found that while the two groups did not differ significantly on the multiple-choice items, the researchers found divergent results in the open-ended questions.

The students who drafted their answers on a computer did much better than their pencil-and-paper counterparts. In fact, only 30% of those who took the written exam performed at a passing level. This was despite the fact that all students at this school are considered college-bound high achievers. Initially, I approached this article with skepticism, since there seemed to be little difference between taking a test on paper and on computer. The difference, after all, lay not in the content but in the way the tests were taken.

How much difference could there be between writing answers on paper or typing on a keyboard? However, the authors make a convincing point by conducting their randomized tests. After all, there is hardly any student today in the United States who does not use computers to craft their written work. This article adds further credence to the body of criticism against standardized testing. On one hand, some researchers are critical about the content of these tests and their usefulness in assessing a student's true ability.

This article points to a further difficulty -- the way the tests are administered further cloud the real capacity.