Re:The Real Problem with Waiting for Superman
by ronin358 on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:56AM
(#1774368)
I agree, the issue as it's argued tends to become a false dichotomy. I've always found testing to be one of the most effective techniques for learning. That's not to say standardized tests are most effective types of tests for learning, but they certainly have their place in a public educational system.
But hell, what do I know? I also think rote memorization gets a bad rap.
Re:The Real Problem with Waiting for Superman
by yummyfajitas on Saturday October 09, 2010 @08:58AM
(#1774941)
Standardization is orthogonal to the issue of a well designed test. A simple illustrative example, based on a test of height:
Poor test design: no rule against standing on your toes.
Standardized test: all results must be reported in meters, as opposed to subjective units ("a wee bit taller than the person giving the test").
Re:The Real Problem with Waiting for Superman
by ronin358 on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:31PM
(#1775244)
In one sense, of course, you are right. But I was using the term as a shorthand for the state standardized tests used to measure academic progress grade by grade (e.g., CAT, TAKS). These state standardized tests tend to measure the minimum requirements for a grade level.
But for a test to be a learning technique, it must challenging enough to make the students study new material. Otherwise, it's just an excercise in "monkey see, monkey do."
Personally, I think the future of standardized tests will be like ACT's Compass college placement test, which progressively adapts to the level of the student as he/she is taking it, yet still results in a comparative standardized score.
Re:The Real Problem with Waiting for Superman
by zeraholladay on Saturday October 09, 2010 @01:18AM
(#1774401)
What? I know Ivy League graduates that can't pass state issue driving tests. I've read articles about computer scientists that can't configure a thermostat. Badly designed marginal tasks are not an accurate measure of person's performance.
Time and time again I hear the argument that teachers now have to "teach the test". If it's possible for a teacher to "teach the test", and students can pass it just by route memorization, well then surely these are some pretty horrible tests!
It's rare to hear people want to reform the actual format and content of the tests to ensure that "teaching the test" is less possible. You could argue, for example, allowing more free-form answers, or creative test formats that allow students to display critical thinking skills to the grader would do just as much to reduce the "teaching to the test problem" as throwing out tests as the primary means of evaluating performance, but you don't really hear this argument all that often.
Admittedly I know little about it, but I find it pretty hard to believe that the best teachers, who do engage their students and provide them a solid education, end up with classrooms of worldly students that end up failing standardized tests.