4 ms·

The lack of incentive to do well is precisely the point of these tests, and they are designed with this context in mind. The testing regimen relies on the same

by npunt 9y ago

The lack of incentive to do well is precisely the point of these tests, and they are designed with this context in mind. The testing regimen relies on the same level of apathy in both students and teachers being present year after year, which provides a nice baseline for statistical analysis/comparison. Incentives mess everything up. See also: NAEP [1] Source: worked in ed covering this subject, studied assessment in ed school with one of the creators of the standards. [1] https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

watwut 9y ago
I don't get why incentives mess test up? I would try harder on graded test, including preparation.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. The more you prepare specifically for a test, the harder it is to determine how much of your score is based on your general understanding of what is being tested, and how much is based on you exploiting the test.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    And the more you discriminate between good students who prepared the test and the bad students who didn't bother, exaggerating the contrast.
  - watwut 9y ago
    If I don't study at all ever, only then is my understanding pure and not contaminated by studying for a test? If I dont study for the test, then you basically measure how long ago it was when I was revising the material last time (if it was last week I get much better result then if it was month and half ago) and you have even more random in terms of whether my learning coincided with I focused on what would count as "exploitation" of this test or different test. For example, was you focusing on speed during easy exercises or ability to solve hard problems last three weeks? It is pretty much random choice and preparation lets you get back to other mode relatively fast - while without it you get worst results with kids who accidentally did wrong thing and it has nothing to do with understanding of material, just a random chance. Motivation to actually prepare yourself removes that random. The exploitation of specific test, especially if you dont understand base material, gets you only so far compared to that.
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    But it seems humans only tend to acquire and demonstrate knowledge for some sort of self gain. These tests would then just tell you the general level of apathy of the students and do not tell you how much they know. If I wanted to know how well the average person on the street can clean a toilet and my test involved asking a bunch of people for a demonstration without pay nor feedback of any kind I don't suspect I would find a lot of clean toilets. I would instead have learned that people don't like cleaning toilets and gained no insight into their ability to do so.
- trentmb 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_anxiety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_anxiety
wfo 9y ago
In my experience certain children (and adults) -- ones who live in successful, wealthy neighborhoods are completely terrified of the idea of failing, at anything. They will start weeping if they feel like they performed poorly on an exam. Any test, no matter how meaningless, determines their self-worth. I'd imagine these students do disproportionately fantastic on this test. At this point it's culture/personality test, not a reasonable countrywide baseline.
- echaozh 9y ago
  And that's perhaps why they, or at least their family became successful and/or wealthy in the first place? If you don't even want to be successful and/or wealthy, and you don't try, your chance of becoming so is definitely much lower.
  - wfo 9y ago
    I think the pathology of worship of competition and the credentialing system -- insisting you must be the best on a test that you are explicitly told means nothing is a mental disorder developed due to being raised in certain cultural contexts, not a cause of success -- do you really think breaking down in tears at the slightest inconsequential setback is a good recipe for success in the primarily luck-driven market economy we live in? How many times do eventually successful entrepreneurs fail and keep going undiscouraged?

by npunt 9y ago

watwut 9y ago

I don't get why incentives mess test up? I would try harder on graded test, including preparation.

gizmo686 9y ago
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. The more you prepare specifically for a test, the harder it is to determine how much of your score is based on your general understanding of what is being tested, and how much is based on you exploiting the test.
- cm2187 9y ago
  And the more you discriminate between good students who prepared the test and the bad students who didn't bother, exaggerating the contrast.
- watwut 9y ago
  If I don't study at all ever, only then is my understanding pure and not contaminated by studying for a test? If I dont study for the test, then you basically measure how long ago it was when I was revising the material last time (if it was last week I get much better result then if it was month and half ago) and you have even more random in terms of whether my learning coincided with I focused on what would count as "exploitation" of this test or different test. For example, was you focusing on speed during easy exercises or ability to solve hard problems last three weeks? It is pretty much random choice and preparation lets you get back to other mode relatively fast - while without it you get worst results with kids who accidentally did wrong thing and it has nothing to do with understanding of material, just a random chance. Motivation to actually prepare yourself removes that random. The exploitation of specific test, especially if you dont understand base material, gets you only so far compared to that.
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  But it seems humans only tend to acquire and demonstrate knowledge for some sort of self gain. These tests would then just tell you the general level of apathy of the students and do not tell you how much they know. If I wanted to know how well the average person on the street can clean a toilet and my test involved asking a bunch of people for a demonstration without pay nor feedback of any kind I don't suspect I would find a lot of clean toilets. I would instead have learned that people don't like cleaning toilets and gained no insight into their ability to do so.
trentmb 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_anxiety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_anxiety

wfo 9y ago

In my experience certain children (and adults) -- ones who live in successful, wealthy neighborhoods are completely terrified of the idea of failing, at anything. They will start weeping if they feel like they performed poorly on an exam. Any test, no matter how meaningless, determines their self-worth. I'd imagine these students do disproportionately fantastic on this test. At this point it's culture/personality test, not a reasonable countrywide baseline.

echaozh 9y ago
And that's perhaps why they, or at least their family became successful and/or wealthy in the first place? If you don't even want to be successful and/or wealthy, and you don't try, your chance of becoming so is definitely much lower.
- wfo 9y ago
  I think the pathology of worship of competition and the credentialing system -- insisting you must be the best on a test that you are explicitly told means nothing is a mental disorder developed due to being raised in certain cultural contexts, not a cause of success -- do you really think breaking down in tears at the slightest inconsequential setback is a good recipe for success in the primarily luck-driven market economy we live in? How many times do eventually successful entrepreneurs fail and keep going undiscouraged?