Angela Haberberger

Test Refection
Something I found interesting about the standardized tests I
administered is the authors diference in thought about their tests
limitations. The authors of the TORC! stated sim"l# and outright$ %The
instances &e ha'e included as subtests of the TORC! are a mere fraction of
the beha'iors that could be included in the construct (eneral Reading
Com"rehension. Ho&e'er$ the nature of the TORC! subtests refects the
)inds of beha'iors &e belie'e to be re"resentati'e$ but not allinclusi'e$ of
that construct* +,ro&n$ Hammill$ and -iederholt$ ./. -hile the authors of
the -IATII state$ %The 0Reading Com"rehension1 subtest measures higher
order critical thin)ing s)ills$ such as summarizing the main idea $ recognizing
stated details$ "redicting e'ents and outcomes$ recognizing stated and
im"lied cause and efect$ and using conte2t to determine &ord meaning*
+The 3s#chological Cor"oration$ 4./. Their onl# admission of limitations &as
generalized to the entire test and stating that no standardized test &as
&ithout fa& +The 3s#chological Cor"oration$ 5/. Although the s)ills
mentioned abo'e in the -IATII are im"ortant s)ills for readers$ the &a# in
&hich students are as)ed to use them for the "ur"ose of this test ma# or
ma# not sho& true com"rehension.
,efore administering these tests$ I had ne'er gi'en an#thing li)e them
before. 6or the "ur"ose of refecting7criti8uing onl# one$ I &ill focus mostl#
on the -IATII because I &as able to gi'e it to both Harrison and Charlotte.
9'en though I had read through the manual and found &here to begin and
sto" for both students "rior to administering the test$ I still found it 'er#
confusing to follo&. There are too man# boo)s$ and the record form &as
o'er&helming. The tests made me ner'ous$ so I can imagine ho& )ids feel
&hen the# ha'e to do this in their classrooms. It felt unauthentic. I &as so
concerned &ith the test and follo&ing "rotocol that I could hardl# focus on
m# students. I realize "art of this &as due to m# ine2"erience. ,ut I still
ha'e a hard time understanding &hat &e can get out of these besides
abstract numbers and labels for )ids.
,efore the -IATII$ I had alread# gi'en the TORC! to Harrison$ and he
scored a'erage7abo'ea'erage in (eneral Reading Com"rehension. So I
"redicted that he &ould score about the same on the -IATII. And he did.
Harrison seemed accustomed to these t#"es of tests and 8uestions. The
Reading Com"rehension "ortion consisted of him reading "aragra"hs7short
stories and ans&ering 8uestions "ertaining to the details. The onl#
some&hat %critical thin)ing* "ortion &as the 8uestions about &hat certain
&ords meant. To do this$ he had to use the conte2t of the "aragra"h.
6or Charlotte$ I "redicted that she &ould be able to %com"rehend* at
grade le'els higher than :indergarten. I thought &e could tr# u" to at least
third grade. I came to ;nd out$ the boo)let said not to administer for
:indergarten$ but I &anted to tr# so &e started at the ;rst grade starting
"oint. -e sto""ed at the third grade sto""ing "oint$ &hich means she read
some of the fourth grade sections< The reason I sto""ed &as because it
seemed that some of the 'ocabular# &as getting di=cult for her. 6or
e2am"le$ one of the 8uestions &as about the authors o"inion in the short
stor#$ and she did not )no& &hat o"inion meant. The loo)s Charlotte &as
gi'ing me for as)ing the detailoriented 8uestions &ere funn#. She ma# ha'e
found it odd because I ne'er as) those )inds of 8uestions in class. She &as
eager to tal) about the "ictures$ ma)e connections$ "redictions$ add
information she alread# )ne&$ or as) 8uestions. Of course$ I let her do those
things< Her desire to do those things and the con'ersations &e had told me
more about her reading than the test did.
In summar#$ the -IATII does not measure %critical thin)ing* as it
claims to do. The test&riters 'ersion of reading com"rehension is ans&ering
a fe& detailoriented 8uestions and one about the meaning of a &ord
"ertaining to a short stor#. -hat I mostl# learned from the tests is ho& to
gi'e them$ score them$ and use a number to com"are students to other
students based on criteria that does not ma)e sense to me.
References
,ro&n$ >.?.$ Hammill$ @.@.$ A -iederholt$ B.?. +4CC.$ 4CDE$ 4C5D/. TORC!F
Test of reading com"rehensionF 92aminers manual +third ed./. Austin$
TGF 3RO9@$ Inc.
The 3s#chological Cor"oration. +HIIH$ HII4/. -IATIIF -eschler indi'idual
achie'ement test$ e2aminers manual. +second ed./. San Antonio$ TGF
The 3s#chological Cor"oration.