As Ivy Tutor awaits further details and clarification of the ACT’s new format, I have some thoughts (and doubts!) regarding the revision of an exam that was heretofore known for never being revised.
To recap, the ACT is trimming its fat. It is removing a number of questions and giving students more time to answer them. What’s more, the makers of the ACT, the now for-profit ACT Education Corp, are giving students the option of taking the ACT Science. As a result, there will be a new truncated ACT, known as the Core ACT, which can optionally include Science, Writing, or both Science and Writing. The ACT will also give students the choice to take the test on paper or on a computer.
Why the changes?
There are two college entrances exams—the SAT and ACT—which compete with one another to win over anxious 16-year olds who typically choose whichever test they believe will provide a less painful test-taking experience. Over the last few decades, the ACT was winning this battle, eventually overtaking the SAT in terms of market share. Students reported that, unlike the SAT’s complex questions, ACT questions felt straightforward. They had less time to respond, but overall, they preferred the ACT. Not to be outdone, the College Board attempted revisions to the SAT to better compete, but their efforts were largely ineffective. So, last year, College Board made a profound change to finally recover its market share. By utilizing newer testing theories known as “Item Response Theory” and “Computer Adaptive Testing,” College Board shortened its 3-hour test to 2 hours. This revision led to an uptick in SAT registrations. Faced with this challenge to its market share, the ACT is now introducing the “Core ACT,” a response fraught with compromises to its quality and risks to its viability.
The ACT is Taking Big Risks
The ACT’s bid to shorten the test may undermine its usefulness. Tests are only useful to the extent they produce consistent outcomes. This quality, known as “reliability,” is compromised when tests are shortened. Fewer questions mean each carries more weight, leading to greater score variability due to chance. The SAT was able to maintain its reliability thanks to its adoption of advanced testing methodologies; however, the ACT’s commitment to a paper-based test precludes a similar strategy. As a result, the shorter ACT risks producing scores which will report luck as much as ability.
Chipping away at test reliability is concerning, and there may be a breaking point. But the more pressing issue for the ACT is the potential erosion of the ACT’s appeal to students. The ACT plans to allow more time per question. This change which appears to make the test more student-friendly could paradoxically diminish its attractiveness. There is a trade-off between question difficulty and the allotted time per question: a test can feature either quick, simple questions or complex questions with ample response time. Providing both ease and ample time would fatally undermine the exam’s purpose—to rank students. A test without sufficient difficulty means minor performance variations, rather than ability differences, would determine high scores—an unacceptable outcome to both students and colleges. The ACT could compensate by creating more difficult questions, but students gravitate to the ACT precisely because the questions are easier, even if they have less time to answer them.
The ACT will abandon another asset as a result of its revision: practice material. Old versions of their exams are widely circulated and provide ample fodder for practice. A revision will render these old exams obsolete, costing the ACT the one advantage it indisputably retains—particularly now that their competitor no longer releases exams to students. Forgoing this advantage is unnecessary.
The ACT can have its proverbial cake and eat it. Because the ACT plans to offer both a computer-based and paper-based variant, why not retain the current test which is popular among many students in paper form and introduce the revision in the online variant? As of now, the ACT indicates that they will first introduce the computer-based variant of its new iteration in the spring of 2025 and then replace its legacy test with a paper-based variant of the new test in the fall of 2025. But it shouldn’t replace the current paper-based test—and for good reasons. Not making this change would allow the ACT to introduce Computer Adaptive Testing and Item Response Theory on the computer-based variant—retaining reliability—and offer the test in its current paper form which is both reliable and popular.
What’s Really Going On?
Why is the ACT willing to risk its reliability and student-friendly reputation? The recent developments seem more reflective of current organizational upheaval than of meticulous planning. Notably, the ACT’s announcement of its privatization and partnership with a private equity group indicates a shift in direction. Changes may be driven more by investor demands than by a considered response to the evolving testing landscape. Given the costs ACT Education Corp could bear as a result of these announced changes, it is conceivable that they will reconsider or modify some aspects of their plans. Ultimately, time will reveal how these decisions unfold.
