Track & field’s 100m sprint is a norm based test. Though it is not a cognitive test, it exhibits so many of the causes and symptoms that make norm-based tests so problematic. It is a test designed to rank participants by giving arbitrary weights to a collection of related skills and then claim a definitive result, in large part through the use of numbers. From the 100m sprint, we get a declaration at the Olympics of who is the World’s Fastest Man and Woman. But I just don’t buy it.
I have learned through the years that there are three main phases to the 100m spring. First is the start, then the acceleration phase and finally..well, I see and hear it called different things. The constant speed phase. The maintain phase. Whatever. The name is not important. What is important is that different sprinters have different strengths. Sure, if you are the best in the world at all three of them you are going to win, but that is quite rarely the case. Sha'Carri Richardson is stronger at the third phase than then first phase, as was Carl Lewis.
When I was growing up, we did the 50 yard dash. The National Football League judges speed with a 40 yard dash. Indoor track has a 60m event. International Track & Field does not use a 100 yard race, but rather a 109.36 yard race (i.e., 100m). Why these differences? Ummmm….well, one could offer different reasons to support one distance or another, but there’s no definite best answer. It is arbitrary which one we should use or respect most. However, the longer the distance, the more important that third phase is, and the shorter the distance the more important the other two phases are.
When I was growing up, we did not get to use starting blocks. In fact, we had to begin from a standing start. Why prefer starting block or a standing start? There are reasons for each, even good reasons for each. One could go either way, so the decision is arbitrary.
This is no different than big math or reading tests. Math and reading are each made up of a large variety of skills. How much should the SATs or the ACTs depend on calculation skills? How much on solving algebraic equations? How much on making sense of word problems? How much on drawing graphs and how much on reading graphs? Obviously, there are more skills than that, and there’s no definitive reasoning for how we should weigh them in order to come up with a final singular score.
Any test that offers a final singular score is intended to sort and rank test takers. This totally makes sense at the Olympics and other sports competitions. But it is just about useless when it comes to teaching and learning. A track coach is not going to learn anything about what to tell an athlete by looking at 100m times. It says nothing about what they are good at, what they are bad at, what mistakes they are making, or where they might most benefit from further instruction or practice.
Normative tests are good for the final competition and useless for teaching and learning.
Break down the three phases of the race into separate times and the coach can use their expert knowledge and experience to zero in on what phase is the weakest. Allow the coach to actually see their work (i.e., watch the race) and they can break it down further and zero in on useful coaching.
But you can’t crown the World’s Fastest Man (or Woman) if you break it down like that. Which phase counts most? Should we focus on top speed? Best time over their fastest 20m? Fastest acceleration? Should the maintain phase be like 20m, or like 70m?
Any test that reports a singular score is meant to sort and rank students. We cannot do that with profiles of proficiency with an array of different skills, but that is a whole different kind of test. And yet, those profiles are what are useful for teachers and students, what is useful for teaching and learning.
Unfortunately, while not all standardized test are normative tests reporting a score of some arbitrary composite of different skills, almost all of them are. And that will always be a problem, perhaps even an obstacle to the process of education.