PARCC

[Overman]

Hello all! Been a few years! Is Marquis still around?

So I'm after work on a Friday from my school, taking the 5th grade PARCC practice tests, and it's pretty much met my expectations as a tough test.

Link: http://practice.parcc.testnav.com/#

If anyone wants to try the 5th grade ELA test, I'd love some people to dive in. I'm about halfway through, and have done fine on the "multiple choice" section, but the essay portion is killing me for the first sections. It deals with different narrator's Point of View, and how they affect the story...If someone will post their answers here, I'd love to see what some possible outcomes could be!

I used my mastery of google skills to attempt to find some other postings...but most teachers prefer pintrest, or haven't even looked at this yet...yikes! I figure bring it to my skeptic friends. I must say, it's nice to be back!

Overman

 

[Minoosh]

If anyone wants to try the 5th grade ELA test, I'd love some people to dive in.

I took the whole test but I wasn't signed in so I have no idea how well I did. Which tells me that the PARCC people suck at giving instructions. Also, the fiction passages were damn near inscrutable. At least the nonfiction passages had some information in them.

What kind of online test gives you a quiz and absolutely no feedback? If the point is to teach children how pointless tests are, this is a good example. I tried really hard on the fiction, and I actually wrote all those little essays. How did the experience differ from the narrator's expectation of the experience. Good God. Please stop trying to get children to "appreciate" literature. It takes all the pleasure out of a good yarn.

ETA:

Below are the answer and alignment documents as well as text complexity guides. Students taking the practice test must note their responses outside of the tool if they wish to determine their score.

I'm glad I went through this exercise. It's a great tool for understanding why students don't try harder in school.

 

[Overman]

I wished you saved your essay! If anyone else does this, please post it here.

 

[Minoosh]

I wished you saved your essay! If anyone else does this, please post it here.

It was not a problem on the nonfiction part. On the fiction part I went with a "compare and contrast" structure. PARCC may attempt to use an algorithm to grade essays, so I used the titles prominently and made sure I used certain phrases - "by comparison," "in contrast," "for example," etc.

I have been subbing in freshman algebra this week and in a Common-Core type question, students were asked to describe the graph of a cubic function. It's actually fairly tricky to "explain," but several key points were that negative inputs would have negative outputs; the parent function would be confined to quadrants I and III, and the words "reflection," "translation," "compressed," "stretched," etc. would figure in. IMO this is pretty sophisticated stuff, and the presumptive audience (14-year-olds) would have difficulty describing the graphs and how they changed as coefficients changed.

The students I teach are "at-risk," many are legally adults, and in reality if they were hard workers and naturals at math they wouldn't be taking freshman algebra at 17 or 18. Further, few if any students will ever be called on to actually perform the task of manually transforming functions. There are a few students who would take to it readily and they deserve to be challenged, but for most of them it's not going to help and might hurt.

Their previous test was multiple choice and most students I work with would be taking the multiple-choice option, with no explanations required. I don't think it's bad to aim for the sophisticated understanding, but frankly it's beyond most of my current students. I'm not phobic about Common Core, but the old meat-and-potatoes Grades 9 and 10 math test (Freshman Algebra, Geometry) was pretty respectable - doable for those with little interest in math; easy for math sophisticates, somewhere in the middle for most teenagers and adequate for "career and college" readiness.

Comparing and contrasting literary passages, though ... it's of dubious value, IMO. If students become readers-for-pleasure, I'm happy with that, but this sort of exam is not the best means to foster that.

 

[Prometheus]

...Comparing and contrasting literary passages, though ... it's of dubious value...

Why? At my college, the ability to do this effectively can mean the difference between a matriculating student being placed immediately into English Composition I (which is a prerequisite for nearly everything else), or getting stuck inseveral years of "developmental reading/writing courses first. IMO, not practicing skills like this early and often is doing students a serious disservice.
By

 

[Minoosh]

Why? At my college, the ability to do this effectively can mean the difference between a matriculating student being placed immediately into English Composition I (which is a prerequisite for nearly everything else), or getting stuck in several years of "developmental reading/writing courses first. IMO, not practicing skills like this early and often is doing students a serious disservice.

There's nothing wrong with being able to do this. It's about priorities. Some people who would never read fiction for pleasure will read in nonfiction subject areas that interest them. Learning how to write has gotten all tangled up with learning how to analyze fiction, and IMO that can be counterproductive. Perhaps I put too much stock in the belief that people will learn to write comprehensible prose when they have something to say.

In the PARCC sample, kids were supposed to look at a few paragraphs taken from a novel and choose which of four answers - all of which were technically correct - best described the narrator's feelings. I've been a professional writer and editor for thirty-plus years and I wasn't all that clear on what test designers were looking for. Maybe it's just me but I felt sorry for future fifth-graders.

 

[Prometheus]

There's nothing wrong with being able to do this. It's about priorities. Some people who would never read fiction for pleasure will read in nonfiction subject areas that interest them. Learning how to write has gotten all tangled up with learning how to analyze fiction, and IMO that can be counterproductive. Perhaps I put too much stock in the belief that people will learn to write comprehensible prose when they have something to say.

In the PARCC sample, kids were supposed to look at a few paragraphs taken from a novel and choose which of four answers - all of which were technically correct - best described the narrator's feelings. I've been a professional writer and editor for thirty-plus years and I wasn't all that clear on what test designers were looking for. Maybe it's just me but I felt sorry for future fifth-graders.

I'm not suggesting that everyone ought to practice literary criticism for its own sake. I'm saying that being able to do so has an important practical application: it helps one to navigate successfully through post secondary education. Yes, most of the same higher order writing and cognitive skills can be developed with non-fiction, and indeed the new curriculum standards call for an increasing proportion of non-fiction to fiction. I don't see why this ought to be considered a problem. What's wrong with being well-rounded?

 

[SezMe]

I have been subbing in freshman algebra this week and in a Common-Core type question, students were asked to describe the graph of a cubic function. It's actually fairly tricky to "explain," but several key points were that negative inputs would have negative outputs; the parent function would be confined to quadrants I and III, and the words "reflection," "translation," "compressed," "stretched," etc. would figure in.

CAUTION: Nitpick ahead.

I hope you mean y=x^3, not a "cubic function". The latter is defined as a function in which the independent variable has at least and at most a power of 3. y=x^3 is, indeed, a cubic function but so is y=2x^3+16x^2-88x+44.

 

[Minoosh]

What's wrong with being well-rounded?

Nothing's wrong with it, obviously. But being able to fluently compare Jane Austen to Charlotte Bronte, for example, is a fairly arcane skill. Some will take to it, some won't. Meanwhile virtually every day I see deficiencies in math, science and critical thinking. I consider that to be part of a well-rounded education as well. I'm not sure schools are doing a good job of this when we have to rely on foreign nationals to fill medical and tech jobs.

 

[Minoosh]

CAUTION: Nitpick ahead.

I was showing then a "library of functions" and went with the parent function. At this point the goal was to introduce students to basic shapes.
There will be fancier stuff in later chapters.

 

[Minoosh]

y=x^3 is, indeed, a cubic function but so is y=2x^3+16x^2-88x+44.

Looking at that I can see that it would be wrong to tell students that in a cubic function negative inputs will always have negative outputs. I don't think I told them that.

These students will be taking the old multiple-choice exit test, not PARCC, and they only need to score 53 percent. "If you don't see the same x twice, it's a function," is probably good for 4 correct answers on an 85-question test. PARCC, if it adheres to samples I've seen, is going to be much harder. They will have to explain their reasoning. I guess that's a good thing, but there will be much gnashing of teeth.

 

[Prometheus]

Nothing's wrong with it, obviously. But being able to fluently compare Jane Austen to Charlotte Bronte, for example, is a fairly arcane skill. Some will take to it, some won't.

Of course. So? If the entire test were made up of such material that would be a problem. The purpose of having some of the test items cover it is to separate the students who do take to it from the ones who do not. Those who can handle a wider range and more rigorous depth of material get higher scores than those who cannot. What's the problem?

Meanwhile virtually every day I see deficiencies in math, science and critical thinking. I consider that to be part of a well-rounded education as well. I'm not sure schools are doing a good job of this when we have to rely on foreign nationals to fill medical and tech jobs.

Well, okay, but you're describing the way things have been in the past, which PARCC and Common Core are attempting to redress. Whether or not they are doing so effectively likely won't me known for years. I've seen persuasive arguments both ways.

 

[Minoosh]

Of course. So? If the entire test were made up of such material that would be a problem.

These literary analysis passages IMO measure the ability to come up with clever-sounding verbiage. I don't think they are particularly meaningful measures. If I had to read Mandarin and compare various interpretations of Confucianism, I would come off as an imbecile. This comes down to my previous statement: The ability to effectively express yourself in writing isn't necessarily tied to the ability to hold forth on "Beowulf" in its original form.

It strikes me that when we have students read Shakespeare and ask them to analyze it, we may be losing sight of two things: Shakespeare was not meant to be read in the first place; and Elizabethan English was not arcane literary language at the time. People who take to Shakespeare have some edge in cultural literacy, but only if culture is defined somewhat narrowly.

The purpose of having some of the test items cover it is to separate the students who do take to it from the ones who do not. Those who can handle a wider range and more rigorous depth of material get higher scores than those who cannot. What's the problem?

The problem, IMO, is that higher test scores based on students' ability to deliver important-sounding palaver measure a skill that is relatively trivial. Just as educated Englishmen of a certain era were rewarded for learning Latin and Greek. There's nothing wrong with knowing that stuff, but it was a function of fashion, and it rewarded being "cultured" vs. being a fluent thinker.

Well, okay, but you're describing the way things have been in the past, which PARCC and Common Core are attempting to redress. Whether or not they are doing so effectively likely won't me known for years. I've seen persuasive arguments both ways.

The effect won't be known for years and during all those years the world will be changing rapidly. Non-native English speakers will far outnumber native speakers. I am an avid reader of fiction for pleasure, and I find it rewarding, but it's just not high on my list of skills critical for navigating the future.

I'm feeling a bit disenchanted lately. One textbook/assessment company will benefit inordinately from the changes, IMO.

ETA: It's great to see such substantive back-and-forth on the education sub-forum, so thanks for that.

 

[Dancing David]

In idea it is great in execution it sucks, I mean seriously pearson acts like their online test is a paper test passed out to all the students.

I can't wait til somebody does it right, where you act like the students can take the test at different times and have enough questions they can be scrambled.

But seriously, lets get everybody in the same room to log on at the same time and pretend they are taking a paper test...

 

[Minoosh]

One company handling teacher certification tests, textbooks bought by the millions and potentially high-stakes high school exit exams is a bit worrisome IMO. These folks must have a lot of clout.

I think you could do a meaningful multiple-choice scramble that could be graded almost in real time, with many opportunities to retake it.

 

[Dancing David]

Pearson is awful when it comes to customer support and they buy all the smaller startups.

 

[Prometheus]

Uhm

One company handling teacher certification tests, textbooks bought by the millions and potentially high-stakes high school exit exams is a bit worrisome IMO. These folks must have a lot of clout.

I think you could do a meaningful multiple-choice scramble that could be graded almost in real time, with many opportunities to retake it.

I'm currently using something like that, but so far we only have enough items written to allow a re-take once every two months. I only know about PARCC because I was helping to update our test to allign with mainstream standards such as PARCC, HiSET and GED.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm currently using something like that, but so far we only have enough items written to allow a re-take once every two months. I only know about PARCC because I was helping to update our test to allign with mainstream standards such as PARCC, HiSET and GED.

Every two months beats every six months, which was the case with my state's old exam.

PPARC will be far less multiple choice, from what I can tell, and humans will have to grade some of it unless software can reliably grade essay questions.

I still don't know if it's going to be "high stakes" for students. Probably not right away.

 

[Prometheus]

These literary analysis passages IMO measure the ability to come up with clever-sounding verbiage. I don't think they are particularly meaningful measures.<snip>

They may well do just that. But remember, PARCC is a consortium of disparate stakeholders with a variety of views on what is necessary/beneficial content to include in a common curriculum. This sort of content is there because at least some of those who are concerned with the process of instituting common standards based education believe that such content is important. As with any compromise, it is to be expected that not all of its results would be equally lauded by all parties involved.

It strikes me that when we have students read Shakespeare and ask them to analyze it, we may be losing sight of two things: Shakespeare was not meant to be read in the first place; and Elizabethan English was not arcane literary language at the time. People who take to Shakespeare have some edge in cultural literacy, but only if culture is defined somewhat narrowly.

Losing sight of...? Why? Any good teacher of Shakespeare ought to be highlighting those two qualities and insisting that students think deeply about their implications across several disciplines. In more contemporary computer-nerd parlance, this is a feature, not a bug. A full understanding of the scope and depth of issues surrounding the ways in which language changes with cultural/historical/geographic context is vital to endeavors such as international business, public policy debate, diplomacy, etc.

The problem, IMO, is that higher test scores based on students' ability to deliver important-sounding palaver measure a skill that is relatively trivial. Just as educated Englishmen of a certain era were rewarded for learning Latin and Greek. There's nothing wrong with knowing that stuff, but it was a function of fashion, and it rewarded being "cultured" vs. being a fluent thinker.

Is diplomacy trivial? How about political speech writing? The actual topics being addressed may be of little importance to some people, but the skills developed in learning how to address them effectively transfer to a wide range of disciplines. Heck, close analysis of the conflicts and resolutions in a Shakespeare play are actually quite good fodder for teaching critical thinking skills, if they're approached from that angle.

The effect won't be known for years and during all those years the world will be changing rapidly. Non-native English speakers will far outnumber native speakers. I am an avid reader of fiction for pleasure, and I find it rewarding, but it's just not high on my list of skills critical for navigating the future.

I would agree with you on this point. There is quite a lot of possible curriculum content that may turn out to be of significantly more benefit, and once a few years go by, there will almost certainly be no shortage of pundits with 20/20 hindsight coming out of the woodwork and bellyaching about how much better things would be if this or that important thing had been included. But there are limits to available resources, time, political will, and the abilities of any compromise to assuage all relevant needs. I think that addressing this reality is best left to the private sector. These days, pretty much anyone who wants to can find and then support some agency that is primarily concerned with addressing just about any specific shortcoming that public education may suffer from.

I'm feeling a bit disenchanted lately. One textbook/assessment company will benefit inordinately from the changes, IMO.

On this, I am in complete agreement with you, but I am optimistic that there are those who can and will find a way to make lemonade out of a bunch of lemons, so to speak.

ETA: It's great to see such substantive back-and-forth on the education sub-forum, so thanks for that.

ditto.

 

[Minoosh]

They may well do just that. But remember, PARCC is a consortium of disparate stakeholders with a variety of views on what is necessary/beneficial content to include in a common curriculum.

For the nonce, I've discovered, in my state PARCC will not be an exit exam for the class of 2015. There's an interim exam, and students will find out in a hurry that they don't need to pass it.

Losing sight of...? Why? Any good teacher of Shakespeare ought to be highlighting those two qualities and insisting that students think deeply about their implications across several disciplines.

This is a personal prejudice, but I have a certain allergy to turning popular entertainment from the 1500s into something children have to be taught how to appreciate. Feeling dumb shuts learning down, in my experience, and how else are they supposed to feel when confronted with a page of text and 20 footnotes? For college, fine, whatever. I didn't have to learn Russian or French for classes that included Chekov and Flaubert. The stories can be told in any language.

A full understanding of the scope and depth of issues surrounding the ways in which language changes with cultural/historical/geographic context is vital to endeavors such as international business, public policy debate, diplomacy, etc.

I really don't see how a knowledge of Shakespeare is critical to their futures. I would sooner lose all of English literature than lose any of the actually universal stuff that's been generated in that time.

No one wants to look dumb, so maybe they should know "Beowulf" isn't about a wolf, that "Romeo and Juliet" does not have a happy ending, etc.

Is diplomacy trivial?

No.

How about political speech writing?

You are asking the wrong person. I'd sooner give a course on how to demolish political speech than teach anyone how to write it. And that could be done in a rhetoric class, which I would be interested in teaching.

Heck, close analysis of the conflicts and resolutions in a Shakespeare play are actually quite good fodder for teaching critical thinking skills, if they're approached from that angle.

Sure. I think there is better fodder. IMO, learning multiple languages, more history, more geography, more math and more science are all just as good for teaching critical thinking as an appreciation of Shakespeare. But for practice making and supporting a statement, they could start with Shakespeare. As well as many other sources.

I may be coming at this from an entirely different angle than you are. "English" to me doesn't mean an appreciation for English-language literature. "English" is a common language for the world to work out its technical problems. Even that is subsidiary to the really universal stuff. Relatively speaking, IMO, any given language is trivial. Communicating isn't trivial, but that's not dependent on any one language.