3 ms·

Why don't you Google real Texas or California standardized tests (as opposed to hypothetical badly designed tests) and then list some explicit techniques for "t

Why don't you Google real Texas or California standardized tests (as opposed to hypothetical badly designed tests) and then list some explicit techniques for "teaching to the test"? That would be far more convincing than merely claiming teaching to the test is real and can be done in all cases.

danieltillett 11y ago
Are you suggesting that teachers don’t engage in “teaching to the test” or that they are doing it, but under the mistaken idea that the standardised tests are gameable?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'm suggesting that I don't think "teaching to the test" (defined as things which increase scores but not understanding) is possible on well designed tests, such as the ones I cited. I'm sure teachers might do it if they could (shady people teachers are), but don't see any evidence they can.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    OK. I certainly agree with you that a good test is not gameable, but the evidence seems to be teachers believe they can game the metric even in CA and TX. This is a problem even if the test is not gameable since the student's time is being wasted. Edit. I have been meaning to mention that I always enjoy your posts Chris even if I don't always agree with you.
pps43 11y ago
Here's an example of the technique for "teaching to the test": the formula you use should include all the numbers in the question. For example, if the question is "find the angle alpha in this right triangle" and gives lengths of the two sides, you know the answer should be some function of these two numbers (and nothing else). More importantly, non-interactive nature of the test does not allow for follow-up questions. A few follow-up questions on oral exam let the examiner probe a lot deeper in less time, therefore getting a much better picture of student's ability and skill level.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I think a very important part of learning math is learning that it's not magic or memory, it's just mechanical procedure transforming inputs to outputs (and therefore the output must contain the input). I.e., you aren't just teaching the test, you are also improving understanding. Now consider a question like "length of alpha, beta=2, gamma=3, a) sqrt(2^2+3^2) b) sqrt(2+3), c) 2^2+3^2, d) 7". Using your heuristic the student can rule out (d) and has a 33% chance of getting the right answer. The test reveals (averaging this over many questions) that they know a little bit, but nothing close to 100%.
  - pps43 11y ago
    The test would reveal that the student knows a little bit about taking the test. The heuristic would still work even if the test was written in Russian and the student did not understand a single word in the question.

danieltillett 11y ago

Are you suggesting that teachers don’t engage in “teaching to the test” or that they are doing it, but under the mistaken idea that the standardised tests are gameable?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I'm suggesting that I don't think "teaching to the test" (defined as things which increase scores but not understanding) is possible on well designed tests, such as the ones I cited. I'm sure teachers might do it if they could (shady people teachers are), but don't see any evidence they can.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  OK. I certainly agree with you that a good test is not gameable, but the evidence seems to be teachers believe they can game the metric even in CA and TX. This is a problem even if the test is not gameable since the student's time is being wasted. Edit. I have been meaning to mention that I always enjoy your posts Chris even if I don't always agree with you.

pps43 11y ago

Here's an example of the technique for "teaching to the test": the formula you use should include all the numbers in the question. For example, if the question is "find the angle alpha in this right triangle" and gives lengths of the two sides, you know the answer should be some function of these two numbers (and nothing else). More importantly, non-interactive nature of the test does not allow for follow-up questions. A few follow-up questions on oral exam let the examiner probe a lot deeper in less time, therefore getting a much better picture of student's ability and skill level.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I think a very important part of learning math is learning that it's not magic or memory, it's just mechanical procedure transforming inputs to outputs (and therefore the output must contain the input). I.e., you aren't just teaching the test, you are also improving understanding. Now consider a question like "length of alpha, beta=2, gamma=3, a) sqrt(2^2+3^2) b) sqrt(2+3), c) 2^2+3^2, d) 7". Using your heuristic the student can rule out (d) and has a 33% chance of getting the right answer. The test reveals (averaging this over many questions) that they know a little bit, but nothing close to 100%.
- pps43 11y ago
  The test would reveal that the student knows a little bit about taking the test. The heuristic would still work even if the test was written in Russian and the student did not understand a single word in the question.