Improved Standard Test Results
From the day our mom packs up snacks in our little, tin lunchbox to the day we walk across the stage for high school graduation, there is one thing we are focused on as students: passing! As much as some people may not like to admit it, typical, public grade-schools are very fixated on grades (ones that will allow you to move on to the next level, that is).
This makes enough sense, except for the fact that our book-based intelligence represents only one sector of what makes us so interesting and unique as individuals. If you were anything like me, there was one other thing you focused hopelessly on in order to progress through your studies: standardized tests.
Through many decades, standardized testing has been a tool used to essentially level the playing field and test all students with equal questions in order to find trends, outliers and areas of improvement…until now. Lately, in the 21st Century, many schools have developed tests that edit themselves as you take them, such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) test. They make sure to curate a test that will cater to the intelligence level of the individual and promote positive reinforcement by producing a good grade.
Are those students really earning the same grade?
Who are we to decide? How do we decide?
This case study, published on the ERIC Database, examined some questions that were rather similar.
(left; Education Resources Information Center logo)
Scholars in a Southern State analyzed the growth in test scores of a low-income district that expanded an existing, district-wide, place-based learning program to strengthen academic subjects for 4th and 8th grade students. Place-based learning (in this context) refers to learning subjects and lessons in a remote location such as a nature trail, park, or other outside amenity that does not exist on campus.
The state mentioned in this study instituted the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program in an effort to improve overall education. The tests were administered to students in grades 4 and 8 and covered topics of English language arts, mathematics, science and history. They require exhibition of conceptual understanding of specific content in context of the real world – this all sounds fairly good, correct? Unfortunately, the design and administration of these tests was not enough to mitigate the 27-44% of the student body testing at an unsatisfactory level.
So, they turned to green. Because why? Green. Is. Good.
The enhanced outdoor education program results showed notable decline in students performing at the ‘unsatisfactory level’ of test scoring by providing opportunities for students that work better in a hands-on, integrated environment to shine.
However, does the improvement of test grades determine the true positive impact of this implementation?
As mentioned in the study, one district was observed, and they were frequently reported as low-income. That being said, it could probably be argued that the increased funding of any extra or improved amenity or program would benefit the general well-being and testing ability of the kids.
So, how do we know it was the green that did the good?
Studies such as this one place little impact on acknowledging the social, psychological or other mental benefits such as critical thinking skills and perception. Cognitive improvement is on a spectrum with multiple dimensions. This study could have been enhanced by adding more variables of measurement or including more diverse subjects to apply this program to in order to examine the true improvement in the students’ quality of life.
If grades are all we are testing students on to determine their success, then perhaps we are defining success in the wrong way.
Emekauwa, Emeka. “The Impact of Place-Based Learning in East Feliciana Parish.” The Case for Place-Based, 2004, pp. 1–8.