Sweaty palms, weak knees, differences in breathing patterns and heavy limbs are all symptoms of the academic activity I have grown to hate: Standardized testing. As a pedagogical task used to measure a certain level of intelligence, tests have long been a mainstay of academia and have evolved very little with time.
Recently, the College Board announced the SAT will soon change in hopes of becoming more “student-friendly.” In 2024, the test will be shorter, will discuss more topics in the reading passages and will be held entirely online, but the fundamental structure of the test will remain the same. I want to know what part of taking an arduous, hours-long test that could determine one’s collegiate future is friendly.
Despite the College Board’s apparent good intentions, these changes fail to address fundamental errors in standardized testing and overlook one key fact: There are multiple intelligences. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities states that embedded in the concept of intelligence are clusters of abilities that construct a fuller understanding of an individual’s academic intelligence. Basically, if intelligence is a troupe of superheroes, every individual has their own assembly of characters that come together to create the team. Some of those types of cognitive abilities are not accounted for in many standardized tests such as the SAT. Therefore, these tests cannot gauge the full extent of a students’ intellect.
The SAT gets some aspects of intelligence correct, given that well performing individuals don’t have to rely solely on their high school’s prestige to be considered for prestigious universities. But the SAT doesn’t test for things like auditory processing, which the Cattell-Horn-Carrol theory, or CHC theory, describes. Students whose strengths lie in processing types the SAT doesn’t test for effectively operate at a disadvantage compared to other students.
The issue with standardized testing is that it fails in acknowledging some of the most vital aspects of intelligence. Not only are some of the CHC theory clusters neglected in tests, but so are aspects of creativity.
Liska Chan, an associate professor of landscape architecture at the University of Oregon, has had a lot of experience with the benefits of project-based coursework. Chan got her undergraduate education at Hampshire College, a college in which there are no majors, no grades and no exams in the traditional sense.
“Standardized things, especially the tests, were barriers more than any kind of port of opening the door for me,” Chan said, describing her time outside of the project-based environment.
Chan has applied project-based characteristics to her classrooms here at UO. The coursework she provides for her students allows for a greater diversity in learning styles. This kind of learning lets students adapt classroom concepts to their own understanding. It caters to all kinds of intelligences because students can express ideas in whatever form they choose.
“It just allows us to actually personalize the learning, and to meet people’s various levels of intelligence,” Chan said. “I wasn’t reviewing anyone’s writing. I did that on purpose because I didn’t want people to be hindered by my expectations, but more to have conversations with themselves about how they are learning.”
Traditional learning experiences don’t serve all individuals in the same way. Chan thinks it would be a good idea for other universities to take on different structures and approaches to learning. She thinks moving away from traditional and standardized learning helps students more effectively and educators measure other important factors of intelligence.
Connectivity is a huge part of Chan’s profession, and in reference to the skills the SAT measures, Chan said, “there is a lot of controversy around what these tests are actually assessing. I think that it is very hard to compare something that probably would involve a lot more individualized and close exchanges and iterations between a teacher and a student.”
It is through these accommodating learning environments that students can best demonstrate their many types of intelligence. While standardized tests may measure intelligence to an extent, continuous use of this as a basis for academic achievement will continue to ignore creative, unique and innovative individuals. Our societal definition of brilliance has attempted to specify something that must remain vague in order to truly appreciate all kinds of intellect.