Comments on: Should they know what’s on the test?

By: dr rick

dr rick — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:33:18 +0000

Ah, well… our state (in fact national) testing is designed to measure ability as well as proficiency (in theory), so that’s what we’re used to and expect.

By: jd2718

jd2718 — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:26:38 +0000

The context of my post was discussion of state testing… I think that they can really only measure proficiency.

In my classroom tests, where almost everyone “gets” the stuff, but it is not always clear at what level, I usually have some varieties of non-standard questions. But sometimes I separate with extra skills…

In the systems of equations test that I boasted about for being predictable, I include a “bonus” question that I didn’t mention (above, or to the kids in advance) – Solve for x and y: ax + by = c, x + y = 1.

Finally, this is math. The skills are hard. And their acquisition generally precedes mastery, at least in the course of a year. In an algebra course (the most important course I teach), I am setting foundation for skills that will need to be called on in a far wider variety of circumstances in future courses.

By: dr rick

dr rick — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:34:55 +0000

There’s definitely a place for that sort of skills test (I think the distinction Rachel draws is a very apt one), but I don’t think that it’s an adequate model for summative testing. Yes, there should be questions of that kind, but a final needs to measure the skills that should have been learned AND the ability to take simple problems at various levels of abstraction and use those skills. Not for the whole exam, or even most of it, but you do need some non-standard questions at the end if the exam is going to meaningfully separate strong students from merely decent ones.

Otherwise you run the risk of an exam that tests nothing but accuracy for the top quartile, which is neither interesting nor useful imo.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:13:11 +0000

I think there remains a tension between the idea of tests as a measure of skill mastery, and tests as a measure of overall aptitude in the subject.

If the object is skill mastery, you make pretty clear what will be tested, and you test it.

If its overall aptitude in the subject, the attitude tends to be a bit more sink-or-swim… Can a student apply knowledge to a new situation? Can a student figure out what’s important from what’s covered in class.

I think there’s a place for both, but it’s important not to confuse the two, and measuring “proficiency” seems to me to be more the first type than the second.

By: Denise

Denise — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:03:26 +0000

My opinion: That’s the only fair way to test.

Students don’t know what is important. They need some guidance, to keep from being overwhelmed by all the possibilities. Of course, the best students can usually figure out what is significant and what’s not, and they can find ways to apply what they know even to an unfamiliar test question. But for most of us, we need it spelled out. We appreciate the teacher who says, “This is exactly what you need to know. Master it!”