The Test: Why Our Students are Obsessed with Standardized Testing—But You Don't Have to Be, by Anya Kamentz. 2015. PublicAffairs, ISBN: 978‐1610394413, 274 pages

I spent the first nine years of my education at a Montessori school, from preschool through sixth grade. One of the things I remember doing every year was taking the Iowa tests. For a week every spring, everyone in school sat down and took all of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for our grade level. You may be surprised to read that this was a great week for all the students. Yes, we had to take the tests, but we got double recess, extra snacks, and absolutely no work other than taking the tests. Plus, the results really didn't matter. We got our scores back a month or two later, looked at them for a bit, and gave them back to the teacher, who put them into a file somewhere. We, the students, never had to take any pretests, study for the actual tests, or dealt with any effects from the scores. We didn't even really know what scores were “good” versus “bad.”

In the eighth grade, I was in public school in a different state and, wow, were things different. We had state end of grade (EOG) tests, which were a Big Deal. We took practice tests and were explicitly told that certain things we learned would be on the EOGs. Fortunately for me, I was far enough ahead of the class that the EOGs weren't too hard. I later found out that this kind of testing was totally normal in public school, which made me very happy that I didn't have to deal with it until much later than most students did.

This kind of high‐stakes testing is the subject of The Test. Anya Kamentz, the author, covers the current state of testing in the U.S., how we got to where we are, and what we can do to make testing a more authentic assessment. Kamentz splits the book into two parts: the problem and the solution. In The Problem section, Kamentz presents arguments against testing and the history and politics of testing. The problems with testing aren't so much with the need to assess learning as they are with how that assessment is done. We can all agree that determining how much knowledge and/or skill a student develops over time is important for understanding what they are learning and their ability to apply what they learn in difference scenarios. However, current testing practices in the U.S. have trended towards high‐stakes state and federal testing that is (but should not be) directly tied to allowing students to progress to the next grade level and evaluating instructor effectiveness and school performance. Kamentz rightly points out that this is a misuse of testing and encourages cheating, teaching to the test, and narrowing of the curriculum.

In addition, because there is so much focus on “the test”, students are prone to developing anxiety and lose their natural drive to learn, focusing on determining what the “right” answer should be. This strong concern to always have the right answer carries over to higher education. No wonder students ask, “Is this going to be on the test?” They are so used to the concept of learning for “The Test” that it can be difficult to understand that not all of the information that their instructors provide ends up on a test. And if the course grade comprises only a few high‐stakes exams, students are not likely to appreciate learning for learning's sake. As a student in courses with that grading scheme, I certainly didn't, and I didn't have nearly the amount of high‐stakes testing that current students have.

How did we end up with the current state of testing in the USA? As previously stated, Kamentz provides the history and politics of testing, which covers the decisions made that resulted in mandated state and federal high‐stakes testing. In general, decisions were made with good intentions: ensure that students are learning rather than watching movies and coloring all day, and ensure that all students can meet certain competencies at key points during their education. The main problems appear to be in the execution of these intentions. For example, No Child Left Behind had the goal of ensuring all students met certain benchmarks in reading and mathematics. However, this mandate did not allow instructors to judge student progress themselves over a period of time. Instead, progress was determined with a single test; students had to achieve a certain score to progress to the next grade. Teacher bonuses and school funding were also tied to test scores. This was intended to be motivational. Instead, it prompted large curriculum reforms, with a major focus on testing and doing well on standardized tests. This meant that areas of the curriculum not on the test, such as social studies, art, and interpersonal skills were often not taught at all.

After reading about all of the problems that current testing practices have caused in the U.S., you will probably be tired, discouraged, and ready to homeschool your kids to save them from twelve miserable years of high‐stakes testing. Keep reading! The second part of this book covers solutions to the current testing problem, some of which are already in practice. And keep in mind that this book was written in 2015, and a lot has happened since then, including a pandemic that has radically shifted (at least temporarily) a number of educational practices. For example, many traditionally in‐person courses have been shifted to synchronous or asynchronous online courses, office hours are now held online, and many instructors are experimenting with recorded lectures, online content, and virtual labs.

One potential short‐term solution is to boycott the tests or opt out. States should have backup plans for evaluating students if they do not take mandated tests. This is not a permanent solution, but it does promote the message that these tests are not wanted. More permanent solutions involve completely restructuring how testing is done. Kamentz discusses groups that are working on machine learning for better automated grading of open‐ended questions, developing effective assessments for emotional and social skills, and developing grading schemes that involve formative assessment and portfolios of student work for a more holistic picture of student learning. Kamentz ends the book by proposing that all of these assessment forms should be used together to monitor student learning. There are so many things that students learn in school. It's impossible to assess everything, but we should certainly be assessing more than just reading and math.

As instructors in higher education, it's important to keep in mind our students’ learning environment before they arrive in our class, especially if they are freshman. This book made me much more sympathetic to students’ anxiety about tests and their questions about what is on the test. They may need a bit of encouragement to think outside a narrow view, to try and fail and try again, or to explore a topic without worrying about finding the “right” answer. They may also need reminders that there may not be a right answer! And as instructors, we need to do our part in giving students multiple opportunities to show what they've learned. Regardless of how it's done, assessment should be about measuring learning, not about checking boxes.

测试：为什么我们的学生沉迷于标准化测试-但您不必一定要这么做，作者：安雅·卡门茨（Anya Kamentz）。2015. PublicAffairs，ISBN：978-1610394413，274页

从学前班到六年级，我在蒙特梭利学校度过了我的前九年。我记得每年要做的一件事是参加爱荷华州考试。每年春天一个星期，学校的每个人都坐下来参加了我们年级的所有爱荷华州基本技能测试。您可能会惊讶地看到这很棒所有学生的一周。是的，我们不得不参加考试，但是除了参加考试外，我们得到了双休假，额外的零食，而且绝对没有其他工作。另外，结果确实无关紧要。一两个月后，我们将分数恢复了，稍稍看了一眼，然后又把它们还给了老师，老师将其保存在某个地方的文件中。我们这些学生从来不需要参加任何预测试，学习实际测试或处理分数带来的任何影响。我们甚至都不知道什么分数是“好”与“差”。

八年级时，我在另一个州的公立学校学习，哇，情况有所不同。我们进行了州终级（EOG）测试，这很重要。我们接受了实践测试，并被明确告知我们学到的某些东西将在EOG上。对我来说幸运的是，我比班级领先得多，以至于EOG并不太难。后来我发现，这种测试在公立学校是完全正常的，这让我感到非常高兴，因为我不必比大多数学生都晚得多。

这种高风险的测试是主题测试。作者Anya Kamentz介绍了美国的测试现状，我们如何到达现状以及如何做才能使测试成为更加真实的评估。Kamentz将本书分为两部分：问题和解决方案。在“问题”部分中，Kamentz提出了反对测试以及测试历史和政治的论点。测试的问题并不仅仅是评估学习的需要，而是评估的方式。我们都可以同意，确定学生随着时间的推移会发展多少知识和/或技能对于理解他们正在学习的内容以及他们在不同情况下运用所学知识的能力非常重要。但是，美国目前的测试方法 已经趋向于高风险的州和联邦考试，该考试与（但不应该）直接与让学生升入下一年级并评估教师的效能和学校表现紧密相关。Kamentz正确地指出，这是对测试的滥用，并鼓励作弊，对测试进行教学以及缩小课程范围。

另外，由于对“测试”的关注太多，学生倾向于发展焦虑，失去学习的天性，而将精力集中在确定“正确”的答案上。始终有正确答案的这种强烈关切一直延续到高等教育中。难怪学生会问：“这要接受考验吗？” 他们习惯于学习“测验”的概念，以至于很难理解并非他们的讲师提供的所有信息最终都会通过测验。而且，如果课程等级仅包括少数几门高分考试，那么学生就不可能出于学习的目的而欣赏学习。作为使用该评分方案的课程的学生，我当然没有，而且我几乎没有目前的学生所进行的高水平测试。

我们如何得出美国目前的测试状态？如前所述，Kamentz提供了测试的历史和政策，涵盖了导致强制性的州和联邦高风险测试的决策。通常，做出的决定是有良好意图的：确保学生整日学习而不是看电影和着色，并确保所有学生在学习过程中的关键点都能达到一定的能力。主要问题似乎在于这些意图的执行。例如，“不让任何一个孩子掉队”的目标是确保所有学生在阅读和数学上达到一定的基准。但是，该授权不允许教师在一段时间内判断学生自己的进步。取而代之的是，通过一次测试就可以确定进度。学生必须达到一定的分数才能升入下一年级。教师奖金和学校经费也与考试成绩挂钩。这是出于激励目的。相反，它促进了大规模的课程改革，主要侧重于测试并在标准化测试方面做得很好。这意味着课程中未经过测试的领域，例如社会研究，艺术和人际交往能力通常根本没有被教授。

在了解了当前测试实践在美国引起的所有问题之后，您可能会感到疲倦，灰心，准备回家给孩子上学，以使他们摆脱十二年来痛苦的高风险测试。继续阅读！本书的第二部分介绍了当前测试问题的解决方案，其中一些已经在实践中。请记住，这本书写于2015年，此后发生了很多事情，其中​​包括大范围地（至少暂时地）改变了许多教育实践的大流行病。例如，许多传统的面对面课程已转换为同步或异步在线课程，现在办公时间在线上，并且许多讲师正在尝试录制的讲座，在线内容和虚拟实验室。

一种可能的短期解决方案是抵制测试或选择退出。如果学生不参加法定考试，则州应该有评估学生的备用计划。这不是一个永久性的解决方案，但是它确实传达了不需要这些测试的信息。更永久的解决方案包括完全重组测试的完成方式。Kamentz讨论了致力于机器学习的小组，以更好地对开放式问题进行自动评分，开发情感和社交技能的有效评估方法，并制定涉及形成性评估和学生作品集的评分方案，以更全面地了解学生的学习情况。Kamentz提出建议将所有这些评估表一起使用以监视学生的学习，以此结束本书。学生在学校学习的东西太多了。它'

作为高等教育的讲师，重要的是要在学生上课之前牢记他们的学习环境，特别是如果他们是新生。这本书使我更加同情学生对考试的焦虑以及他们对考试内容的疑问。他们可能需要一些鼓励，以狭narrow的眼光思考，尝试失败，再试一次，或者在不担心找到“正确”答案的情况下探索主题。他们可能还需要提醒，可能没有正确的答案！作为指导者，我们需要尽我们所能，为学生提供多次展示他们所学知识的机会。无论如何完成，评估都应该是衡量学习程度，而不是复选框。