Before reading this book, my philosophy on retesting was that students could retake assessments, but only after completing required review and any missing assignments. I wanted to make sure they had actually engaged with the material before attempting the test again. This past year, I even shifted to requiring students to finish all related assignments before they were allowed to take the quiz or test in the first place, which surprisingly motivated many of them to stay caught up. After reading Myron Dueck’s work, my philosophy hasn’t dramatically changed, but it has certainly been refined. I now see even more value in structured retesting systems that emphasize learning rather than punishment. His strategies confirm that requiring meaningful preparation is important, but they also push me to consider how I can streamline the process, offer targeted retesting opportunities, and better track student growth. In many ways, the book reinforced my core belief that reassessment should support mastery—but it also gave me new tools and ideas to make that process more intentional and effective.
I allow corrections on quizzes. My philosophy has been that we do a skill check in the form of quizzes to see where we are. We then correct our mistakes in preparation for the test. I have offered test retakes at different times in my career, but students didnt take advantage of them or the ones who did, already had good grades, they just wanted a few extra points. I once read an article about how we are always constantly learning so to not allow kids to redo is showing them that they can continue to learn. And that is where grades get in the way. We have timelines on when they need to do things and that ruins the idea of letting them continue to learn the concepts and change their grade as they learn the material better.
I have allowed retesting for several years now. I feel it is best to allow students to fill in their gaps and revisit what they didn't learn and allow them to show they can/did learn the material. I have never required full test retakes, always a "quick retake" where they only retest on the concepts they got wrong or didnt adequately master the first attempt.
Prior to reading this book, my philosophy on test-retakes were "only under extenuating circumstances" or if the whole class bombed it, I believed it to be a "me" issue and needed to reteach the content. Now, I see the value in retakes and how it can motivate a student to want to do better, it doesn't have to be the whole test, and how you can use tracking sheets to help students take ownership in what they know.
Before reading this book, I was kind of on the fence about retesting. I liked the idea in theory because if the goal is learning, kids should get another chance. At the same time, I worried it would turn into students not taking the first test seriously, and it would be hard to manage.
After reading Dueck, I’m more on board. A test is a snapshot, not the finish line. I still don’t think retakes should be a free pass, but I do think they should be available with some structure. If a student wants a retest, they need to do something first, like corrections or extra practice, so the retest is about learning, not just points.
What was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
As I teach first grade, students will take unit pre & post tests as well as quizzes throughout the unit. With that, I have a data tracker in excel and I keep track of all student scores on that form. WIth that, I’m able to look at how each student is doing and how we are doing as a class. When looking at data, I keep in mind that tests are snapshots in time and there are circumstances that do affect students on the day of the quizzes or tests. With that, my philosophy has not changed because as I teach younger students, I look at their data of their tests/quizzes as snapshots in time. I put focus into their daily work and how they are interacting with the material during a lesson through daily observations and discussions. The tests/quizzes give me an idea where they are at with the concept, but they provide little value.
Before reading this book I have always allowed my students to retest. I feel like this has always been essential especially in math since concepts tend to build on each other. If the students never master a skill or understand it, then it is unlikely they will understand the skill that builds on it. Thinking of other subjects I teach, I do like the idea mentioned in the book to focus on certain sections. I think breaking material into different sections so students can start with their strong skills can help build confidence for the remaining parts of the assessment.
I always allow my students to retest. I remember that when we evaluate my students, it is just a snapshot of what they know. The daily data I take is a better understanding of who they are and what they know Most of my students are non-verbal and non-typical learners, so normal tests don't always show us what they know. When we go through our curriculum, we always do a pre-test and a post-test and they are the exact same test.
My district has the policy that students who fail their first attempt on a test must be allowed the option to retest. This is usually a good situation. Most students do not want to have to put more time into the testing and be forced to attempt it again. I do think that retesting has merit. However, I require the students who need to retake come in on their own time to make up the test. There are not that many students who have ever needed to retake. I would not like to use up an entire class period to allow a couple of students to retake. I do see that the students do improve their score the second time around. The school policy is that the highest grade possible on a retake is the lowest D.
My philosophy follows along with our school policy in that students are able to retest any quiz/assessment and students are required to retest if they fail a quiz/assessment. After reading my philosophy remains the same but it was very nice have some information on the importance or how the retest should look or be completed. I do typically offer a "different" test than the original but I will soon be changing and allows students to redo the portions of the test they did not do well on and allow them to keep the scores of the portions they did do well on. I really like the idea of making students complete a tracking sheet to identify the parts they did well and the parts they need some more work on.
Before reading Myron Dueck’s work, I didn’t have a philosophy on retesting because, as an Early Childhood Special Education teacher, I do not give formal tests. Instead, I allow children to demonstrate skills in multiple ways—during structured activities, in play, or in familiar routines. After reading the book, my approach aligns well with Dueck’s emphasis on multiple opportunities to show learning. It reinforced that what matters is evidence of mastery, not a single assessment. My focus remains on understanding each child’s growth across different contexts rather than relying on one formal test.
I have always allowed my students to re-test with the exception on Spelling. As with adults, kids also have bad days and good days. Something could have happened at home in the morning and the student couldn't focus or was distraught, this leads to a failing grade. There are circumstances that are out of the kids control and not their fault, they should not be punished for that. It also doesn't show a valid score of their understanding. After reading this chapter, I found it very helpful. I want to start using the "Double Dip Method" and a few others in my classroom. I see so much benefit from retesting but in an actual purposeful way that will encourage the student not discourage the student.
For a while now I have allowed students to improve their score by redoing errors on tests, specifically on math where one error in the process can cause problems with the outcome. It is important to show their work though. I work with primarily EL students so misinterpreting questions is sometimes a problem. It is important to make my students are understanding the question fully. I agree that students should not have to redo the whole test. I like the idea of the tracking sheet however it may be taking extra time to break down the tests into certain sections. Perhaps if the tests were redesigned according to section in the first place it would be easier to complete in the first place.
Before reading this book, my philosophy on retesting was to allow it as an option. Growing up, I remember bombing a test or quiz and could not throw that paper in the trash fast enough to forget about it and I certainly was not going back to the answers that I did not know. By allowing a student to retest, not only will it help them to achieve a passing grade, but it also supports the learner going back to square one to revisit a skill or method that they are delinquent in. Hopefully that build their knowledge, and they may even become proficient. I also believe it is a life skill, when you fail at something, don't give; get back up and try again.
What was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
Prior to reading the book my retesting philosophy had changed over the years of teaching from absolutely not as a new teacher to now retakes are an option but need to put in extra work as a prerequisite to being allowed to retake. I feel as though my philosophy and Mr. Duek's are similar in the fact that we allow for retests, however, I think his approach to the required work needed to retest is more teacher directed and structured. I just have students complete a study guide and redo the entire test. I think I should incorporate more target specific areas and reinforcements of those prior to retesting.
What was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
Many years ago my school did the 80% policy. So if students didn't earn 80% on homework or quizzes they were allowed to redo the ones they missed. Even though we don't do this policy any more, I have continued to have students fix homework and quizzes. After fixing homework or quiz I average the two grades and that is the final grade I put in. By doing this, it gives me a chance to reteach or talk w these students who are struggling in ICU time and it helps them understand the concepts better, therefore not many students have to retake tests because of this. There are very few times that I have to let students fix a test because we have caught the problems early. I don't make them do the whole test over but just fix the problems they miss.
I don't think that I had much of a philosophy on retesting before reading this book. I work with kindergarteners and I give assessments to see how much they know. I take the information and work with my students that are in need of extra help to get them on track.
What was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
My philosophy or retesting before reading this book is the same as it is now after reading this book. I have always been in favor of letting student retest to show their learning. I feel that if students are willing to learn materials that they did not know for the first test, I want to give them the opportunity to demonstrate that learning. I also want their grade to reflect their understanding even if the understanding is after the first test.
However, after reading this chapter, I am now more inclined to let students retake sections of the test versus the entire test again. This would reduce my work in grading, but more importantly, reduce the amount of time it takes students to demonstrate their learning. There really is no reason for them to retake sections of the test that they have already demonstrated mastery. This makes the retesting process more efficient and focused on learning gaps.
Before reading this book, my philosophy on retesting was that students could retake assessments, but only after completing required review and any missing assignments. I wanted to make sure they had actually engaged with the material before attempting the test again. This past year, I even shifted to requiring students to finish all related assignments before they were allowed to take the quiz or test in the first place, which surprisingly motivated many of them to stay caught up. After reading Myron Dueck’s work, my philosophy hasn’t dramatically changed, but it has certainly been refined. I now see even more value in structured retesting systems that emphasize learning rather than punishment. His strategies confirm that requiring meaningful preparation is important, but they also push me to consider how I can streamline the process, offer targeted retesting opportunities, and better track student growth. In many ways, the book reinforced my core belief that reassessment should support mastery—but it also gave me new tools and ideas to make that process more intentional and effective.
ReplyDeleteI allow corrections on quizzes. My philosophy has been that we do a skill check in the form of quizzes to see where we are. We then correct our mistakes in preparation for the test. I have offered test retakes at different times in my career, but students didnt take advantage of them or the ones who did, already had good grades, they just wanted a few extra points. I once read an article about how we are always constantly learning so to not allow kids to redo is showing them that they can continue to learn. And that is where grades get in the way. We have timelines on when they need to do things and that ruins the idea of letting them continue to learn the concepts and change their grade as they learn the material better.
ReplyDeleteI have allowed retesting for several years now. I feel it is best to allow students to fill in their gaps and revisit what they didn't learn and allow them to show they can/did learn the material. I have never required full test retakes, always a "quick retake" where they only retest on the concepts they got wrong or didnt adequately master the first attempt.
ReplyDeletePrior to reading this book, my philosophy on test-retakes were "only under extenuating circumstances" or if the whole class bombed it, I believed it to be a "me" issue and needed to reteach the content. Now, I see the value in retakes and how it can motivate a student to want to do better, it doesn't have to be the whole test, and how you can use tracking sheets to help students take ownership in what they know.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this book, I was kind of on the fence about retesting. I liked the idea in theory because if the goal is learning, kids should get another chance. At the same time, I worried it would turn into students not taking the first test seriously, and it would be hard to manage.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Dueck, I’m more on board. A test is a snapshot, not the finish line. I still don’t think retakes should be a free pass, but I do think they should be available with some structure. If a student wants a retest, they need to do something first, like corrections or extra practice, so the retest is about learning, not just points.
What was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteAs I teach first grade, students will take unit pre & post tests as well as quizzes throughout the unit. With that, I have a data tracker in excel and I keep track of all student scores on that form. WIth that, I’m able to look at how each student is doing and how we are doing as a class. When looking at data, I keep in mind that tests are snapshots in time and there are circumstances that do affect students on the day of the quizzes or tests. With that, my philosophy has not changed because as I teach younger students, I look at their data of their tests/quizzes as snapshots in time. I put focus into their daily work and how they are interacting with the material during a lesson through daily observations and discussions. The tests/quizzes give me an idea where they are at with the concept, but they provide little value.
Before reading this book I have always allowed my students to retest. I feel like this has always been essential especially in math since concepts tend to build on each other. If the students never master a skill or understand it, then it is unlikely they will understand the skill that builds on it. Thinking of other subjects I teach, I do like the idea mentioned in the book to focus on certain sections. I think breaking material into different sections so students can start with their strong skills can help build confidence for the remaining parts of the assessment.
ReplyDeleteI always allow my students to retest. I remember that when we evaluate my students, it is just a snapshot of what they know. The daily data I take is a better understanding of who they are and what they know Most of my students are non-verbal and non-typical learners, so normal tests don't always show us what they know.
ReplyDeleteWhen we go through our curriculum, we always do a pre-test and a post-test and they are the exact same test.
My district has the policy that students who fail their first attempt on a test must be allowed the option to retest. This is usually a good situation. Most students do not want to have to put more time into the testing and be forced to attempt it again. I do think that retesting has merit. However, I require the students who need to retake come in on their own time to make up the test. There are not that many students who have ever needed to retake. I would not like to use up an entire class period to allow a couple of students to retake. I do see that the students do improve their score the second time around. The school policy is that the highest grade possible on a retake is the lowest D.
ReplyDeleteMy philosophy follows along with our school policy in that students are able to retest any quiz/assessment and students are required to retest if they fail a quiz/assessment. After reading my philosophy remains the same but it was very nice have some information on the importance or how the retest should look or be completed. I do typically offer a "different" test than the original but I will soon be changing and allows students to redo the portions of the test they did not do well on and allow them to keep the scores of the portions they did do well on. I really like the idea of making students complete a tracking sheet to identify the parts they did well and the parts they need some more work on.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading Myron Dueck’s work, I didn’t have a philosophy on retesting because, as an Early Childhood Special Education teacher, I do not give formal tests. Instead, I allow children to demonstrate skills in multiple ways—during structured activities, in play, or in familiar routines. After reading the book, my approach aligns well with Dueck’s emphasis on multiple opportunities to show learning. It reinforced that what matters is evidence of mastery, not a single assessment. My focus remains on understanding each child’s growth across different contexts rather than relying on one formal test.
ReplyDeleteI have always allowed my students to re-test with the exception on Spelling. As with adults, kids also have bad days and good days. Something could have happened at home in the morning and the student couldn't focus or was distraught, this leads to a failing grade. There are circumstances that are out of the kids control and not their fault, they should not be punished for that. It also doesn't show a valid score of their understanding.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this chapter, I found it very helpful. I want to start using the "Double Dip Method" and a few others in my classroom. I see so much benefit from retesting but in an actual purposeful way that will encourage the student not discourage the student.
For a while now I have allowed students to improve their score by redoing errors on tests, specifically on math where one error in the process can cause problems with the outcome. It is important to show their work though. I work with primarily EL students so misinterpreting questions is sometimes a problem. It is important to make my students are understanding the question fully. I agree that students should not have to redo the whole test. I like the idea of the tracking sheet however it may be taking extra time to break down the tests into certain sections. Perhaps if the tests were redesigned according to section in the first place it would be easier to complete in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this book, my philosophy on retesting was to allow it as an option. Growing up, I remember bombing a test or quiz and could not throw that paper in the trash fast enough to forget about it and I certainly was not going back to the answers that I did not know. By allowing a student to retest, not only will it help them to achieve a passing grade, but it also supports the learner going back to square one to revisit a skill or method that they are delinquent in. Hopefully that build their knowledge, and they may even become proficient. I also believe it is a life skill, when you fail at something, don't give; get back up and try again.
ReplyDeleteWhat was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
ReplyDeletePrior to reading the book my retesting philosophy had changed over the years of teaching from absolutely not as a new teacher to now retakes are an option but need to put in extra work as a prerequisite to being allowed to retake. I feel as though my philosophy and Mr. Duek's are similar in the fact that we allow for retests, however, I think his approach to the required work needed to retest is more teacher directed and structured. I just have students complete a study guide and redo the entire test. I think I should incorporate more target specific areas and reinforcements of those prior to retesting.
What was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteMany years ago my school did the 80% policy. So if students didn't earn 80% on homework or quizzes they were allowed to redo the ones they missed. Even though we don't do this policy any more, I have continued to have students fix homework and quizzes. After fixing homework or quiz I average the two grades and that is the final grade I put in. By doing this, it gives me a chance to reteach or talk w these students who are struggling in ICU time and it helps them understand the concepts better, therefore not many students have to retake tests because of this. There are very few times that I have to let students fix a test because we have caught the problems early. I don't make them do the whole test over but just fix the problems they miss.
I don't think that I had much of a philosophy on retesting before reading this book. I work with kindergarteners and I give assessments to see how much they know. I take the information and work with my students that are in need of extra help to get them on track.
ReplyDeleteWhat was your philosophy on retesting before reading this book? Has your philosophy changed? If so, how? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteMy philosophy or retesting before reading this book is the same as it is now after reading this book. I have always been in favor of letting student retest to show their learning. I feel that if students are willing to learn materials that they did not know for the first test, I want to give them the opportunity to demonstrate that learning. I also want their grade to reflect their understanding even if the understanding is after the first test.
However, after reading this chapter, I am now more inclined to let students retake sections of the test versus the entire test again. This would reduce my work in grading, but more importantly, reduce the amount of time it takes students to demonstrate their learning. There really is no reason for them to retake sections of the test that they have already demonstrated mastery. This makes the retesting process more efficient and focused on learning gaps.