4 ms·
This is why standardized tests exist. They're the same test no matter where you're from. IMHO, standardized tests should always be about mastery and scoring s
by riskable 3y ago
This is why standardized tests exist. They're the same test no matter where you're from.
IMHO, standardized tests should always be about mastery and scoring should reflect that rather than having a simple number like 1200 or 1600. Someone could get a 600 on their Math SAT but the parts they got wrong were related to simple fractions or time-based calculations. If the only information you have is, "600 out of 800" you don't have that information.
Furthermore they shouldn't even have scores, really. They should be pass/fail based on mastery of required subjects (whatever the test is about). Either you know quadratic equations or you don't. If you got 90% of the quadratic equations correct you know how to deal with quadratic equations... You probably just made a minor mistake somewhere or were running out of time. You still "got the gist of it".
It would make a hell of a lot more sense to me if students had to take dozens of standardized tests demonstrating mastery of all facets of the high school curriculum rather than one great big test at the end of their schooling that measures their ability to remember randomly-sampled fractions of that knowledge.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago>It would make a hell of a lot more sense to me if students had to take dozens of standardized tests demonstrating mastery of all facets of the high school curriculum rather than one great big test at the end of their schooling that measures their ability to remember randomly-sampled fractions of that knowledge. Wait, if the one big test at the end was randomly sampled well, it would still provide results almost as good as requiring 10 to 30 times the same amount of test time and energy per student. I don't think this cost to benefit ratio makes sense.
- riskable 3y agoIf you take a test at the end of every class to demonstrate mastery of the subject how is that not cost effective?
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoBecause 30 hours is 30 times more than 1 hour. That's what a random sampling lets you get away with.