Testing: Only the Tip of the Iceberg

How we prepare students for tests matters, but what we might think of as "test prep" is only one piece of the puzzle―just one of the things that must be in place if we expect our adolescents to be able to gain and display the literacy skills they need for future study, work, and life. If we meet this larger "life" goal, then students should be able to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and abilities on the measure of success that currently seems to count most: their states' high-stakes assessments.

Good preparation for the tests―and life beyond―has several aspects, including:

Using high-stakes tests to enrich the curriculum
Employing instructional approaches that aim high and require students to think
Ensuring that all students experience a coherent, relevant, and engaging curriculum
And, of course, helping students become comfortable with the format of the major assessments

Using High-Stakes Tests to Enrich the Curriculum

I am sure you have heard the complaint―perhaps even made it yourself―that the current climate of high-stakes testing is causing a narrowing of the curriculum; and it is―in typical schools. But as Judith Langer has reported in her study of schools that "beat the odds" (Langer, 2001), more effective schools have found ways to go beyond the assessments. Groups of teachers and administrators "deconstruct" the tests, figure out what underlying knowledge and skills they demand, and work together to integrate the teaching of the identified knowledge and skills into the curriculum.

For example, if we were to examine a writing test for middle or high schoolers, we would very likely find an extended writing assignment―often the five-paragraph essay, with a prompt asking the student to persuade someone of something. If we were then to decide that we need to teach our students to write a five-paragraph persuasive essay in preparation for this assessment, we will have narrowed our curriculum to what we think will be on the test. However, if we go deeper and realize that our students need to understand that there are different purposes for writing, and they need to learn when to use each and how the purpose affects the organization, syntax, and word choices that they make, then we will have enriched the curriculum―and in the process provided them the knowledge and skills they need to do well on any writing task or test.

Let me offer an example from Langer's "Beating the Odds" study: In one state two schools (School A and School B), which serve demographically similar students, took exactly the two approaches just mentioned. Teachers and administrators in each examined the state's eleventh-grade writing assessment and made changes to curriculum and instruction designed to improve student performance. School A focused on the five-paragraph persuasive essay; School B, on different purposes for writing. As you can imagine, the scores for both sets of students rose at first. But in the fourth year, the state changed the prompt to a different kind of writing, and you can predict the result: The scores of School A plummeted, while the scores of School B remained high. More important, however, is that the test result is merely the tip of the iceberg―a demonstration that the students in School B are prepared for much more than a high-stakes assessment; they are prepared for success beyond high school.

Employing Instructional Approaches That Aim High and Require Students to Think

A recent report to the Carnegie Foundation suggests that even adolescents who struggle with literacy need an engaging "approach to learning that is grounded in a problem-solving process" (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 29). Instruction that goes beyond teaching to the test aims high and requires students to think. To implement this kind of instruction, teachers need to:

Use a combination of strategies. It's important to recognize that there's no silver bullet. Despite occasional claims by developers that one particular instructional strategy or approach provides the path to higher achievement, Langer (2004) found that when programs and teachers rely heavily on only one type of instruction, no matter what type, their students do not perform as well as students in programs that use a combination of three types of instruction that she classifies as separated, simulated, and integrated. Separated instruction isolates something and teaches it directly; for example, an English teacher whose students tend to write only in short declarative sentences might directly teach about compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences. (For an example, see Ostrowski, 2000.) The teacher might then provide worksheets or some other simulated activity that gives students practice in combining short sentences into compound and complex sentences. And then she or he might have students integrate this new knowledge and skill into an activity that has a larger and more meaningful purpose; for example, they might select a piece of their own writing to improve for publication or write a new piece that has an authentic purpose (e.g., a letter to the editor of the local or school paper on a current issue).
Teach students to do and to think. Given that individuals learn by building on what they already know and understand (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999), it is essential that we help students develop what Langer calls "envisionments" of what they are studying (Langer, 1995). This means starting with what students are thinking about any particular text or assignment and using questioning techniques that help them articulate their understanding. We can draw on these understandings to help them connect what they are learning in one lesson to what they already know. It is also important to teach them to step back and analyze the materials as well as their own thinking―to teach them strategies for thinking about the content, what they might do to apply it, and how they learn best. Such instruction builds on prior knowledge, improves comprehension, extends thinking, and supports students to go deeper and higher.
Have students generate knowledge. Part of aiming instruction high means not stopping when students "get it." It means requiring them to generate new knowledge by using what they have learned in a new way. This is also one approach to teach strategies for thinking about the content as well as how to use it. For example, a teacher in a high school business academy for at-risk students in Florida created a unit on affirmative action and debate for her eleventh graders (Langer, 2002). The school's academic program combines with a career path and uses bilingual skills. Initially the teacher required that the students read one book or article for and one against affirmative action. She held discussions in which the students shared their reactions to the two articles and helped them come to understand the arguments and their own thinking about the issue. At this point, many teachers would stop. But this teacher wanted students to develop even stronger envisionments on the topic and to acquire and practice new skills. So she had her students analyze and learn how to structure an argument (a skill also needed for the Florida writing test) and to work through their ideas related to civil rights. Next she had them write argumentative papers from their own perspectives. But she wasn't finished―after that they had to adopt the opposite perspective and give a short speech. Thus she offered these at-risk students opportunities to learn and practice a host of essential skills in reading, writing, listening, speaking, and thinking, as well as acquire the tools to rethink their own perspectives and come to appreciate the views of others. This is an example of instruction that requires students to generate new knowledge, not just receive it.
Give discussion its due―discussion matters. Discussion is perhaps the most neglected language art in schools (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2001). Learning how to enter a discussion, agree and disagree with peers, and support one's point of view with evidence is in its own right an important aspect of literacy. However, discussion-based instructional approaches can also lead to higher achievement in reading and writing (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003). The key conditions are that the discussion be dialogic―that it involve students and teacher in a genuine exchange of ideas―and that it help students develop their understandings, or envisionments; that it involve challenging academic content; and that it contribute to curricular cohesion. In a multisite study that established the relationship between discussion and literacy achievement, Applebee and colleagues did not study particular teacher behaviors, but rather looked at the general approach to instruction and student outcomes. (I have touched on some of the effective instructional strategies in discussion-based classrooms in other parts of this article.)

Ensuring That All Students Experience a Coherent, Relevant, and Engaging Curriculum

Consistency counts. Lone effective teachers are not enough to make a long-term difference for students, but a program is (Langer, 2002). To have a coherent program in a middle or high school requires consistency within a department and often, especially at the middle school, within a cross-disciplinary team; in addition, the program must be consistent with the ESL program, special education, and, now, tutoring services and extra help. Just as teachers within a classroom need to help students connect new knowledge to old and one lesson or unit of study to another, so, too, groups of teachers need to help students relate ideas and knowledge across disciplines while learning to distinguish between the literacies and requirements of each (Applebee, 1996). But coherence is more than connections. It involves organizing the curriculum around big ideas that adolescents can relate to. For example, one high school I know organizes its English curriculum in overarching, year-long themes: heroism across cultures and time; personal freedom versus social responsibility; family and community ties―the choices and moral dilemmas; self-definition. Another middle school teacher uses change as the year-long theme for her seventh graders (Close, Hull, & Langer, 2005).

Helping Students Become Comfortable with the Format of the Major Assessments

I don't mean to gloss over this aspect, but if all the other features that I've been discussing are in place, then students should have the strong foundation that will enable them to do well on a literacy assessment. Spending a few class periods helping them understand the organization and structure of the test and how the test will be administered can put them at ease and boost their confidence that they are ready for this particular demonstration of some of their blossoming literacy abilities.

References

Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next--A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Close, E., Hull, M., & Langer, J. A. (2005). Writing and reading relationships in literacy learning: Theory and research in practice. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Paratore (Eds.), Learning to write, writing to learn. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Langer, J. A. (2002). Effective literacy instruction: Building successful reading and writing programs. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Langer, J. A. (2004). Getting to excellent: How to create better schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D (2001). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany.

Ostrowski, S. (2000). How English is taught and learned in four exemplary middle and high school classrooms. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany.

Janet I. Angelis is associate director of the National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement at the University at Albany, State University of New York. A former middle school teacher of primarily English and social studies, for the past several years Ms. Angelis has been working to ensure that research results are understandable and useful to schools and districts, and she has been helping schools find and adopt research-based, effective literacy practices.

Return to top