1. Outcomes Assessment in the Biology Classroom: A comparison of oral versus written testing Miranda Bacon, Department of Biology, York College Introduction In 2001 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation was passed, stating that only those schools that met government approved academic standards would be eligible for federal aid. Since then, alternative assessments have received much attention, as it is generally believed that if students were properly assessed, they would show a higher degree of achievement. Studies have evaluated many forms of alternative assessments, but individual oral testing has remained conspicuously unaddressed. Literature Review Alternative assessments have evolved out of a dissatisfaction with traditional testing methods. They are preferable to traditional assessments because of their greater accuracy in measuring students’ skills and progress (Daniels 1999), particularly with lower achieving and disabled students (Lawrenz et al. 2001). Despite these findings, many teachers still rely on traditional assessments due to a lack of knowledge about effective assessments (Warren & Nisbet 2001). Teachers who are willing to implement alternative assessments usually stick to those for which abundant research exists. Individual oral exams, for which there is little research, seem to be almost completely absent from the classroom. The studies on oral assessment that do exist argue that oral exams have a greater potential for testing higher order cognitive skills than traditional methods (Wakeford et al. 1995), they maximize long-term retention of information, and they provide students with a higher level of mastery and a deeper understanding of material than do traditional tests (Guest & Murphy 2000). No studies seem to exist that quantitatively compare oral exams to other forms of assessment. A study was conducted that compared student scores on various assessments (Lawrenz et al. 2001), but that study did not include oral testing. Based on the reported benefits of oral assessment, it seems that a quantitative comparison study involving oral assessment is the next logical step. 1. Biology students will demonstrate a better understanding of subject matter if assessments are administered orally versus in a written format. 2. Students in low academic level biology classes will have greater discrepancies between scores obtained from oral and written assessments than will students in average or high academic level classes. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to determine which assessments are currently being used in biology classrooms. The results showed that combined subjective /objective written tests are one of the two most frequently used assessments, while individual oral exams are the least frequently used (Fig 1). Expected Results 1. Oral test-takers in all three classes will outperform their written test-taking classmates (Fig 2). 2. A greater discrepancy will exist between test scores of oral test-takers and written-test takers in the low academic level class than will be seen in the average and high academic level classes (Fig 2). Implications  Greater discrepancies between oral and written exam scores for low achieving students may suggest that oral assessments are most useful for this group of students.  Should oral exams more accurately assess low achieving students, the scores for these students will likely improve.  Improved scores, especially for lower achieving students may help schools comply with NCLB. Future Research  Further work could be done to determine whether oral testing is valuable in disciplines other than biology.  The methods presented in this experiment could be applied to future studies to determine the efficacy of other alternative assessments. Literature Cited Daniels, Vera. 1999. The assessment maze: making instructional decisions about alternative assessments for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure 43:171. Guest, Kristin E. and Murphy, Diane S. 2000. In support of memory retention: a cooperative oral final exam. Education 121:350. Lawrenz, Frances, Huffman, Douglas and Welch, Wayne. 2001. The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats. Science Education 85:279-290. Wakeford, Richard, Southgate, Leslie, and Wass, Val. 1995. Improving oral examinations: selecting, training, and monitoring examiners for the MRCGP. British Medical Journal 311:931-936. Warren, Elizabeth and Nisbet, Steven. 2001. How grades 1-7 teachers assess Mathematics and how they use the assessment data. School Science and Mathematics 101:348-356. Figure 1: Average implementation of various outcomes assessments obtained from data collected from 14 secondary biology teachers. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Almost Always Figure 2: Expected score discrepancies between classes and between oral and written test-takers within those classes. Hypotheses Research Design Low Academic Level Class (30 students) Average Academic Level Class (30 Students) High Academic Level Class (30 Students) The same teacher will preside over all three classes. After each class has received the same lecture, the classes will be divided and exams will be given. Oral Test- takers (15) Written Test- takers (15) Written Test- takers (15) Oral Test- takers (15) Written Test- takers (15) Oral Test- takers (15) 45 combined written test-takers 45 combined oral test-takers The questions on both exams will be identical. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Debbie Ricker for her invaluable advice and support and the York County biology teachers who participated in the pilot study.