10 ms·

That's a good analogy. It's really hard to "measure knowledge," and in my humble opinion, as someone who once was a teacher, tests are one of the hardest ways o

That's a good analogy. It's really hard to "measure knowledge," and in my humble opinion, as someone who once was a teacher, tests are one of the hardest ways of doing so.

oska 7y ago
> It's really hard to "measure knowledge" And the idea of doing so is a fairly recent (and I would say toxic) invention. The concept of graded tests, marks and class grades (A, B, C etc) are all only a bit more than 100 years old. They're a product of the industrialisation of schooling.
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  They are a product of industrialization! But here is what's the nagging thought on my mind. This industrialized schooling has allowed basic human knowledge to be disseminated at a faster pace than ever before. The need to do so caused it to roll back on quality, sometimes greatly. But without this tradeoff, would knowledge be able to reach so many? Is there some sort of balance point to be reached? I agree that currently, education systems are terrible, but is there any way to maintain them at scale that is not?
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    That's an interesting point - sacrificing quality for quantity. You see it in so many fields. Like agriculture. Back in the day, every farm was 100% organic. But just try feeding today's population that way. Now you pay a premium for organic. So in some sense maybe education is no different. Just doing more with less, or rather, doing less, for more people.
    - beobab 7y ago
      Another interesting point: People graded on quantity (making pots) made better pots than those graded on quality (one masterpiece). https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramics-class-and-quantity-before-quality/ https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic...
      - rdiddly 7y ago
        "Quantity has a quality all its own!" :)
skookumchuck 7y ago
> tests are one of the hardest ways of doing so I've never understood how someone could master a subject and yet be unable to answer any questions about it. In my experience, people who did well on tests tended to understand the topic, and the people who didn't do well made excuses.
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  I’ve always had a similar feeling. In classes where I knew the subject well, I generally did well on the tests. In classes where I had gaps in my understanding, I usually did poorly. In classes where the grades were posted publicly, my general subjective judgment of how well people knew the material matched up with their scores. Not perfectly, obviously, but the correlation has been high enough that I’ve never really been convinced that testing in general is “missing” some critical element of learning.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    There might be a really strong correlation, but the deviations from that correlation might not be totally random. That is, there might be people who consistently test above or below their skill level. This creates some weird imbalances that are far from fair. It would be a lot more acceptable if deviation of test scores from skill were to be totally random for every test.
    - grandmczeb 7y ago
      I can understand biases in a specific test (e.g. cultural biases), but those can (and should!) be corrected with better design and specific accommodations. Do you think that testing as a general method of evaluation is biased though? Because the objection I typically see isn't "we need better test design" it's "there's a component of student ability that cannot be measured by a test".
      - rocqua 7y ago
        It is more about things like stressing over tests, dyslexia, ability to sit still for x hours and ability to express yourself in writing. These all affect how well you test, but do not determine your skill in the subject. Hence, having a disadvantage in any of the above gives you a system disadvantage in the educational system.

That's a good analogy. It's really hard to "measure knowledge," and in my humble opinion, as someone who once was a teacher, tests are one of the hardest ways of doing so.

oska 7y ago

> It's really hard to "measure knowledge" And the idea of doing so is a fairly recent (and I would say toxic) invention. The concept of graded tests, marks and class grades (A, B, C etc) are all only a bit more than 100 years old. They're a product of the industrialisation of schooling.

RealityVoid 7y ago
They are a product of industrialization! But here is what's the nagging thought on my mind. This industrialized schooling has allowed basic human knowledge to be disseminated at a faster pace than ever before. The need to do so caused it to roll back on quality, sometimes greatly. But without this tradeoff, would knowledge be able to reach so many? Is there some sort of balance point to be reached? I agree that currently, education systems are terrible, but is there any way to maintain them at scale that is not?
- rdiddly 7y ago
  That's an interesting point - sacrificing quality for quantity. You see it in so many fields. Like agriculture. Back in the day, every farm was 100% organic. But just try feeding today's population that way. Now you pay a premium for organic. So in some sense maybe education is no different. Just doing more with less, or rather, doing less, for more people.
  - beobab 7y ago
    Another interesting point: People graded on quantity (making pots) made better pots than those graded on quality (one masterpiece). https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramics-class-and-quantity-before-quality/ https://excellentjourney.net/2015/03/04/art-fear-the-ceramic...
    - rdiddly 7y ago
      "Quantity has a quality all its own!" :)

skookumchuck 7y ago

> tests are one of the hardest ways of doing so I've never understood how someone could master a subject and yet be unable to answer any questions about it. In my experience, people who did well on tests tended to understand the topic, and the people who didn't do well made excuses.

grandmczeb 7y ago
I’ve always had a similar feeling. In classes where I knew the subject well, I generally did well on the tests. In classes where I had gaps in my understanding, I usually did poorly. In classes where the grades were posted publicly, my general subjective judgment of how well people knew the material matched up with their scores. Not perfectly, obviously, but the correlation has been high enough that I’ve never really been convinced that testing in general is “missing” some critical element of learning.
- rocqua 7y ago
  There might be a really strong correlation, but the deviations from that correlation might not be totally random. That is, there might be people who consistently test above or below their skill level. This creates some weird imbalances that are far from fair. It would be a lot more acceptable if deviation of test scores from skill were to be totally random for every test.
  - grandmczeb 7y ago
    I can understand biases in a specific test (e.g. cultural biases), but those can (and should!) be corrected with better design and specific accommodations. Do you think that testing as a general method of evaluation is biased though? Because the objection I typically see isn't "we need better test design" it's "there's a component of student ability that cannot be measured by a test".
    - rocqua 7y ago
      It is more about things like stressing over tests, dyslexia, ability to sit still for x hours and ability to express yourself in writing. These all affect how well you test, but do not determine your skill in the subject. Hence, having a disadvantage in any of the above gives you a system disadvantage in the educational system.