The recent re-introduction of province-wide group achievement testing in Ontario has placed new demands, challenges, and some stresses on students, parents, and teachers. As consultants, school psychologists are in a position to meet these challenges because of their advanced knowledge about standardized testing and their knowledge of what can be reasonably expected from students based on the students' cognitive development. This paper uses multiple perspectives to evaluate the Grade 3 Assessment, with the main focus on the degree to which the items reflect current curriculum guidelines. We also examine whether the demands placed on the children are consistent with what we know about the cognitive development of 8-9 year-old-children. Although the Grade 3 Assessment is based on the Ontario Curriculum (1997), many items exceed what should be expected from a typical Grade 3 student when children's cognition is considered. Given the political implications of province-wide testing, tests need to be impeccably constructed. This analysis is intended to provide school psychologists with a framework for disseminating information about the value and limitations of the Grade 3 Assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
2.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1988). Psychological testing. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
4.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1994). Human memory and cognition (Second Edition). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
5.
Barnett, J. C., Sowder, L., & Vos, K. E. (1980). Textbook problems: Supplementing and understanding them. In S. Krulik (Ed.), Problem solving in school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
6.
Bartell, R. (1996). Challenges and issues for school psychologists in the 21st century. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 12(2), 1-3.
7.
Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Carney, P. J. (1996). A practitioner's view of challenges and issues for school psychologists in the 21st century. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 12(2), 98-102.
9.
Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1-2, Serial No. 246).
10.
Case, R., & Sowder, J. (1990). The development of computational estimation: A Neo-Piagetian analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 79-104.
11.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(l), 61-68.
13.
Dellarosa Cummins, D. (1991). Children's interpretations of arithmetic word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 8(3), 261-289.
14.
Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). (1997). Grade 3 assessment of mathematics, reading, and writing. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
15.
Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). (1998). Grade 3 assessment of mathematics, reading, and writing: Student anchor booklets and rationales. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
16.
Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). (1998). Grade 3 assessment of mathematics, reading, and writing: Student mathematics booklet. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
17.
Englert, C. S., Culatta, B. E., & Horn, D. G. (1987). Influence of irrelevant information in addition word problems on problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 29-36.
18.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (Third Edition), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
19.
Gajar, A. H. (1992). Adults with learning disabilities: Current and future research priorities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 507-519.
20.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing research for student with learning disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.
21.
Green, J. M. (1998). Empire Club of Canada Keynote Presentation. Toronto: Education Quality and Accountability Office.
22.
Guttentag, R. E. (1984). The mental effort requirement of cumulative rehearsal: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 92-106.
23.
Guttentag, R. E., & Ornstein, P. A. (1990). Attentional capacity and children's memory strategy use. In J. T. Enns (Ed.), The development of attention: Research and theory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Elsevier Science Publishers.
24.
Hughes, C. A., & Smith, J. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 66-79.
25.
Ireland, D. S. (1997). Analysis of the tasks used in the Grade 3 Provincial Assessment of Mathematics and Language Arts. Ottawa, Ontario: Unpublished document from Transeval Services.
26.
Levine, M. D. (1998). Developmental variation and learning disorders (Second Edition), Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
27.
Lovett, S. B., & Flavell, J. H. (1990). Understanding and remembering: Children's knowledge about the differential effects of strategy and task variables on comprehension and memorization. Child Development, 61, 1842-1858.
28.
McGuire, J. M., & O'Donnell, J. M. (1989). Helping college students to achieve: Collaboration between faculty and support services. College Teaching, 37, 29-32.
29.
Ministry of Education and Training. (1997). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Language, 1997. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
30.
Ministry of Education and Training. (1997). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Mathematics, 1997. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
31.
Ministry of Education and Training. (1995). The common curriculum: Provincial standards language, Grades 1-9. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
32.
Ministry of Education and Training. (1995). The common curriculum: Provincial standards mathematics, Grades 1-9. Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
33.
Parmar, R. S., Cawley, J. F., & Frazita, R. R. (1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 415-429.
34.
Petrotty Rivera, D. (1997). Mathematics education and students with learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 2-19.
35.
Resnick, L. B. (1982). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
Stern, E. (1993). What makes certain arithmetic word problems involving the comparison of sets so difficult for children?Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 7-23.
37.
Swanson, H. L. (1994). Short-term memory and working memory: Do both contribute to our understanding of academic achievement in children and adults with learning disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(1), 35-50.
38.
Vogel, S. A., & Adelman, P. B. (Eds.). (1993). Success for college students with learning disabilities. New York: Springer-Verlag.
39.
Weaver, S. M. (1993). The validity and the use of extended and untimed testing for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Unpublished thesis submitted as partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor Education: University of Toronto.
40.
Willows, D. M. (1991). A “normal variation” view of written language difficulties and disabilities: Implications for whole language programs. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1(3), 73-103.
