3 ms·

Well, all of the tests are multiple choice. Switching away from the format would certainly encourage a better understanding of material. Given that the format o

by 67726e 13y ago

Well, all of the tests are multiple choice. Switching away from the format would certainly encourage a better understanding of material. Given that the format of the 4 choices is general: 1 correct answer, 1 or 2 close but not correct answer, and 1 or 2 obviously wrong answers. Now that format makes thing significantly easier to get the correct answer than simply presenting the problem and asking the student to solve the problem. I'd imagine some of you are thinking "Well hell, they would still need to know the formula", but they also give you formula sheets with the tests. Since they give you a list of possible answers and a list of applicable formulas, you can pretty quickly plug in some numbers and determine the correct answer. Does it still require some base understanding? Yes. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that my grades would not have been as high had I not known how to game the testing system in such a manner. I'm only a few years removed from high school, so I cannot imagine things have changed too much, especially for the better. For reference I am from South Carolina, albeit I went to one of the more performant/richer public school systems in the state.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Teaching students how to get into the ballpark of the right answer and reject obviously wrong ones increases their understanding. It's an important skill and there are adults out there who embarrass themselves by failing to do it (for example http://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5-things-more-likely-to-happen-to-you-than-being-f-fmeu http://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5-things-more-likely-t... ). Same thing for taking a reference work (e.g. a formula sheet, a wikipedia page) and figuring out which piece of information you need and applying it. Remember, I'm not asking if the tests could be better. I'm asking what you do to make test scores go up without making understanding go up. I'd be at least moderately convinced if you could even show me two teaching techniques, A and B, where A is superior for test scores but significantly inferior for understanding.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  I used to play rock-paper-scissors with my child. Could win every time. You could see on his face his simple logic. You can learn to take tests - I did that for the GRE, got a 99% but hadn't ever studied 2 of the area tests I took. There's a logic to test questions, you can learn it. There was no understanding involved, I can assure you. Just a recognition of what is considered a 'fair' question, which lets you eliminate answers that are too convoluted.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    "I did it, it's totally possible, I'm not going to support this claim at all but I assure you it's true." It would be far more convincing if you actually skimmed the NY Reagents test and presented a teaching strategy which you believe would raise scores but not increase understanding. Note that if such a strategy does not exist for the NY test but does exist for every other test, then we have a solution to all the complaints about testing - use the NY test for everyone.

by 67726e 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Teaching students how to get into the ballpark of the right answer and reject obviously wrong ones increases their understanding. It's an important skill and there are adults out there who embarrass themselves by failing to do it (for example http://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5-things-more-likely-to-happen-to-you-than-being-f-fmeu http://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5-things-more-likely-t... ). Same thing for taking a reference work (e.g. a formula sheet, a wikipedia page) and figuring out which piece of information you need and applying it. Remember, I'm not asking if the tests could be better. I'm asking what you do to make test scores go up without making understanding go up. I'd be at least moderately convinced if you could even show me two teaching techniques, A and B, where A is superior for test scores but significantly inferior for understanding.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
I used to play rock-paper-scissors with my child. Could win every time. You could see on his face his simple logic. You can learn to take tests - I did that for the GRE, got a 99% but hadn't ever studied 2 of the area tests I took. There's a logic to test questions, you can learn it. There was no understanding involved, I can assure you. Just a recognition of what is considered a 'fair' question, which lets you eliminate answers that are too convoluted.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  "I did it, it's totally possible, I'm not going to support this claim at all but I assure you it's true." It would be far more convincing if you actually skimmed the NY Reagents test and presented a teaching strategy which you believe would raise scores but not increase understanding. Note that if such a strategy does not exist for the NY test but does exist for every other test, then we have a solution to all the complaints about testing - use the NY test for everyone.