march 2 success an educator`s perspective

MARCH 2 SUCCESS
AN EDUCATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
www.march2success.com
To have a strong future, the Army provides all its employees with a large selection of
educational programs and benefits. Now the Army is extending its commitment to
success to young adults still in school with March 2 Success. March 2 Success will
assist any student in preparing for a standardized test whether for meeting state
requirements, college entrance or military entrance. The Army is offering the course free
and without obligation to show its commitment to the future of our young men and
women.
WHAT IS MARCH 2 SUCCESS DESIGNED TO DO?
This program is designed to help students perform on standardized tests at a level
which is consistent with their abilities.
WHY STUDENTS TEST BADLY?
Lots of students under-perform on standardized tests not because of a lack of
knowledge, but because of a lack of good testing skills and familiarity with
the particularities of the test they are given. For instance, many students
have never been exposed to a computerized test interface. The mechanics
of testing on computer are quite different from testing on paper.
Further, there may be new and unfamiliar question types, which
students may (under the pressure of a test) fail to understand fully.
Moreover, with highly speeded tests, students often choose ways
of managing their time that are ultimately detrimental to their
scores. Finally, there are a number of psychological factors – the
intimidation of the test, the pressure of the clock, and even believing
that “I don’t test well” can have an impact on a student’s performance.
There are at least 5 major areas which can lead to student
underperformance on tests:
1. Gaps in Students’ Basic Skills
In some cases, students never learned certain concepts or skills thoroughly, or
they learned them at one point and then forgot them. These knowledge gaps
can have a disproportionate impact on a student’s test score, especially when
the questions revolve around certain basic concepts that students may not only
be lacking but may be unaware they are lacking.
2. Poor Testing Strategies
Franklin Evans, an Educational Testing Service researcher, noted in a study
that many of his test students, especially his
minority testers, were probably underperforming on his SAT-like tests because
they “were using less than optimal testtaking strategies.” (See Evans, Franklin R.,
A Study of the Relationships among Speed
and Power Aptitude Test Scores, and Ethnic
Identity. Educational Testing Service,
Research Report RR-80-22, 1980)
To formulate a solid testing strategy for any particular tests requires, as a
minimum, an understanding how the test is scored; having a timing strategy,
and; having a question selection and prioritization strategy. Each of these
factors must be tailored to the particular characteristics of the test being taken.
Understanding How a Test is Scored: The particular way that a test is
scored has a significant impact on the most rational way to approach
various aspects of testing. Certain tests have a deduction for incorrect
answers, which is intended to neutralize the effect of random guessing;
other tests do not have such a deduction. This makes a large difference
when it comes to formulating the most intelligent guessing strategy for a
given test instrument. Further – the newer computer adaptive tests are
very particular in their method of scoring, and require a much more finelytuned sense of how to achieve the best score. Knowing when it is rational
to guess, which parts of the test are worth more or fewer points, and
where it is worth spending one’s time to get the greatest benefit, are
crucial and rarely explained in a clear way by the testing companies
themselves. A lack of understanding of how a test is scored leads to suboptimal pacing and guessing strategies, which may cost a student
valuable points.
Most standardized tests are highly
Timing:
speeded tests; that is, only a small percentage of
testers are supposed to be able to finish it. How a
student deals with this fact can make an enormous
difference in his or her score. Given the short time
allowed per question, many students will, then, opt
for one of two simple (but often damaging)
strategies: (1) Try to rush through the test, solving
every question, even though he or she doesn't have enough time to do
any of them thoroughly. (2) Go through the test at a more moderate pace,
starting with the first question, until time runs out. Students need to learn
how to cope with the highly-speeded test environment, how to prioritize
their problem-solving, choosing the questions that are most advantageous
to them, and to spend the appropriate amount of time on each of them.
Question Selection and Prioritization: For those students (in fact, the
majority) for whom doing every question is counter-productive, they then
need a strategy for choosing which questions to do, and in which order, to
make the most beneficial use of their time.
3. Unfamiliarity with Problem Types
A ideal test instrument would be perfectly aligned with
a student’s learned curriculum – that is, the “tested
curriculum” and the “learned curriculum” would be
identical. If the tested curriculum is perfectly aligned
with the learned curriculum, then a student’s ordinary
school experience will perfectly prepare them for a
test. However, most standardized tests are very blunt
instruments and are far from perfect. Many test
something other than what has been covered in a
student's learned curriculum (either by testing concepts that were not covered,
or – more commonly -- by testing concepts in ways that were not covered). In a
world of imperfect tests, some additional preparation is required if students are
to perform up to their abilities.
In some cases students are faced with question types they have never seen
before, where it may be difficult to figure out what kind of answer is responsive
or how to respond to the question; in other cases, the question type is familiar
but the wording of the question leaves some doubt as to what the student is
being asked to do. And if a student doesn’t really understand the question, they
have very little hope of choosing the right answer (even if they understand all of
the concepts involved.)
4. Testing Mechanics on Computerized tests
Tests that are given on computer pose a particular challenge
for students. Even if we assume that most students have
exposure to computers (an assumption that is not a safe one
for all segments of the population), the mechanics of testing on
a computer are not obvious, and can have a significant impact
on students’ test performances. How does a student use the
interface? What are its features? How do you pace yourself
given the nature of the computer format? How can you deal with math
questions if you can’t write directly on the problem? These are all questions
that need to be address when faced with a computerized test instrument.
5. Psychological Factors
Most students, in fact, feel that the lack of testing skills which
manifests itself in a low test score is an indication of their
own lack of ability or a deficiency in themselves as students.
The reality may be quite different: While in certain cases
students have simply not learned their lessons, quite often
the problem lies in the fact that a question item is not
aligned with their school curriculum or that they have
simply never learned the testing strategies required to
perform well on a standardized test. This lack of
understanding about where their difficulty lies (that it
lies in poor testing skills, and not in poor mathematical
or linguistic skills) adds to the frustration that many
students feel with such tests, and their sense that such
tests are unfair. This leads, in some cases, to a sense of helplessness and a
difficulty in preparing seriously to perform well on such instruments.
In the case of minority students, there may be even more significant problems
at work. Claude Steele, a psychologist at Stanford, has done some interesting
work which makes the case that minority test-takers, when told that minorities
do poorly on a test, in fact do test worse than they would if they were told that
minorities did equally well on the test. That is: knowing that a test may be
biased, in fact produces subnormal results for certain groups of people.
HOW DOES THIS PROGRAM HELP?
The program has 6 key components, each of which is designed to address a
potential reason for student underperformance:
¾ Review of subject matter (for example, reviewing basic
mathematical concepts and processes) to ensure that these
concepts are fresh in students’ minds; review drills at each
stage are included to help students verify their own mastery
¾ Review of question types, so students precisely understand
what each type of question asks them to do
¾ Instruction in essential problem-solving skills, which will help
students understand how the concepts they have learned in
school will be tested
¾ Help for each student in developing an overall testing strategy –
question selection, prioritization, and timing
¾ Instruction in basic test mechanics, including the operation of a
computerized test interface
¾ Administration of practice tests, given under timed conditions. These tests
provide feedback on individual strengths and weaknesses and guide students in
their selection of curriculum modules.
WHAT OTHER RESOURCES DOES MARCH 2 SUCCESS OFFER?
¾ An advanced Learning Management System, which tracks each lesson and drill
that a student views; students can easily see which portions they have started
and completed.
¾ Online interactive lessons for each skill type
¾ Comprehensive drills which follow each lesson, which allow students to assess
their mastery of the skills just learned
¾ Online practice tests, under timed conditions, in a computerized testing interface
¾ Online email coach feature which offers students to email for help when they
have questions on how to use their tools.
HOW DO YOU KNOW MARCH 2 SUCCESS IS EFFECTIVE?
The designer of March 2 Success, The Princeton Review, has 20 years
of experience with standardized test preparation; and there is good
evidence that their programs are highly effective. A 2001 study,
independently verified by ICR (International Communications
Research) showed that students in Princeton Review SAT courses
improved an average of 140 points (on a 400-1600 scale);
subsequent studies showed that students in SAT II Math courses
improved 83 points (on a 200-800 scale) and students in SAT II
Writing courses improved an average of 136 points (on a 200-800
scale).
Similar results are achieved with traditionally underprivileged groups
of students – a 1992 study in Riverside CA, in a program sponsored
in part by the State of California for Title I Schools showed an
improvement of 120 points on the SAT.
www.march2success.com
March 2 Success is a gift to America’s youth
from the United States Army