3 ms·

If I were a teacher/professor, the words "Will it be on the test" would be criterion for an an F, or a detention, or something along those lines. But somehow we

by jowiar 12y ago

If I were a teacher/professor, the words "Will it be on the test" would be criterion for an an F, or a detention, or something along those lines. But somehow we've codified that mentality into law? Jesus. We've broken school by making it all about getting a piece of paper with a number on it, rather than by being about being able to do things better each day. Learning is about answering "Can you do more, or do things better today than you did yesterday?" Repeat this process and eventually you're good at things.

overgard 12y ago
> If I were a teacher/professor, the words "Will it be on the test" would be criterion for an an F, or a detention, or something along those lines. So I assume you're not giving tests then? Because jesus, if you are, and those tests are consequential to the kids future, that's a pretty damn relevant and reasonable question. (Also: seriously, you'd punish a kid for asking a question?) The only way that attitude even remotely makes sense is if your students are there voluntarily, but lets be real: they're probably not. Either they're forced to be there (K-12), or they're compelled to be there for job prospects (college). You're probably lucky if even %10 are there because they want to be there.
- was_hellbanned 12y ago
  Not the parent commenter, but: >Because jesus, if you are, and those tests are consequential to the kids future, that's a pretty damn relevant and reasonable question. The point of a test isn't to test every single detail of what you were taught, it's to hit a random distribution of topics and examples of what you were taught. This gives a pretty good indicator of how well you learned the subject overall. Asking "is this going to be on the test" shows that you have no intention of actually learning everything you're taught, which is the point of the class, and instead you're only interested in memorizing the minimum to pass a limited test, which is not the point of the class.
  - ubercow13 12y ago
    Knowing what a test is going to be like is pretty useful if that test matters at all. Otherwise there is a higher chance that the people who fare well on the test will be those who happened to work more on the topics or skills which come up. I'm happy my lecturer for group theory in university let me know which of the 5+ page proofs of theorems from the course wouldn't need to be known for our exam - it wouldn't have been very good use of my time to fully internalise all of them. However they were interesting and I think it added value that they were in the course. I think you just have an idealised picture of how tests work. In the best maths exams I have taken, you know all you could within reason about what you need to know and what will be the content of the test, and yet the questions still surprise you and cause you to think in new ways.
    - was_hellbanned 12y ago
      Knowing what a test is going to be like is pretty useful if that test matters at all. Knowing and understanding the subject matter is likely to be pretty useful if the test matters at all. This is why you study and understand the entire course, which is the point of the course. However, being told explicitly which portions you will be tested on goes against this goal. which of the 5+ page proofs of theorems from the course wouldn't need to be known for our exam - it wouldn't have been very good use of my time to fully internalise all of them What? If you're doing mathematics correctly, you are ably to derive the proofs on the fly. You don't have to memorize "five pages of proofs". You understand the concept, you understand the mechanics, and you derive the proof as necessary. I think you just have an idealised picture of how tests work. I'll refrain from saying what I think about your "picture of how tests work".
      - ubercow13 12y ago
        Maybe I worded my post badly; I was trying to say that your idea of a good test isn't in line with how tests are designed in my experience of education. If you agree with the sentiment that children should be punished for trying to optimise for exams, then yes I think your picture of how tests work (at the moment, in school especially and somewhat college) is wrong. I see nothing wrong with a well designed test, made to cover a whole course and to be fruitless to optimise for. At least in the UK in school, all STEM type exams are not like that as far as I remember. Humanities exams are much closer in style to this. I do think GCSE and A-level science exams could be much better designed. At college level though I'm not sure the way you describe is the only good way to do things. I'll refrain from saying what I think about your idea of how to "do mathematics correctly".
- jowiar 12y ago
  > those tests are consequential to the kids future Most of them aren't. Especially in college. > lets be real: they're probably not Welcome to the REAL problem in education. We fight wars over the right to education, and then when we have it, we piss all over it? > You're probably lucky if even %10 are there because they want to be there. If we stopped obsessing over the damn tests, we might make some progress on this. It's a failing of culture and of teaching that students don't want to learn. I'd much rather have a country full of people who enjoy learning than people who learn only at metaphorical gunpoint, and spend their lives trying to avoid it. If they're a couple years behind at 18, so be it. I'll take the learners at 25 any day.

by jowiar 12y ago

overgard 12y ago

> If I were a teacher/professor, the words "Will it be on the test" would be criterion for an an F, or a detention, or something along those lines. So I assume you're not giving tests then? Because jesus, if you are, and those tests are consequential to the kids future, that's a pretty damn relevant and reasonable question. (Also: seriously, you'd punish a kid for asking a question?) The only way that attitude even remotely makes sense is if your students are there voluntarily, but lets be real: they're probably not. Either they're forced to be there (K-12), or they're compelled to be there for job prospects (college). You're probably lucky if even %10 are there because they want to be there.

was_hellbanned 12y ago
Not the parent commenter, but: >Because jesus, if you are, and those tests are consequential to the kids future, that's a pretty damn relevant and reasonable question. The point of a test isn't to test every single detail of what you were taught, it's to hit a random distribution of topics and examples of what you were taught. This gives a pretty good indicator of how well you learned the subject overall. Asking "is this going to be on the test" shows that you have no intention of actually learning everything you're taught, which is the point of the class, and instead you're only interested in memorizing the minimum to pass a limited test, which is not the point of the class.
- ubercow13 12y ago
  Knowing what a test is going to be like is pretty useful if that test matters at all. Otherwise there is a higher chance that the people who fare well on the test will be those who happened to work more on the topics or skills which come up. I'm happy my lecturer for group theory in university let me know which of the 5+ page proofs of theorems from the course wouldn't need to be known for our exam - it wouldn't have been very good use of my time to fully internalise all of them. However they were interesting and I think it added value that they were in the course. I think you just have an idealised picture of how tests work. In the best maths exams I have taken, you know all you could within reason about what you need to know and what will be the content of the test, and yet the questions still surprise you and cause you to think in new ways.
  - was_hellbanned 12y ago
    Knowing what a test is going to be like is pretty useful if that test matters at all. Knowing and understanding the subject matter is likely to be pretty useful if the test matters at all. This is why you study and understand the entire course, which is the point of the course. However, being told explicitly which portions you will be tested on goes against this goal. which of the 5+ page proofs of theorems from the course wouldn't need to be known for our exam - it wouldn't have been very good use of my time to fully internalise all of them What? If you're doing mathematics correctly, you are ably to derive the proofs on the fly. You don't have to memorize "five pages of proofs". You understand the concept, you understand the mechanics, and you derive the proof as necessary. I think you just have an idealised picture of how tests work. I'll refrain from saying what I think about your "picture of how tests work".
    - ubercow13 12y ago
      Maybe I worded my post badly; I was trying to say that your idea of a good test isn't in line with how tests are designed in my experience of education. If you agree with the sentiment that children should be punished for trying to optimise for exams, then yes I think your picture of how tests work (at the moment, in school especially and somewhat college) is wrong. I see nothing wrong with a well designed test, made to cover a whole course and to be fruitless to optimise for. At least in the UK in school, all STEM type exams are not like that as far as I remember. Humanities exams are much closer in style to this. I do think GCSE and A-level science exams could be much better designed. At college level though I'm not sure the way you describe is the only good way to do things. I'll refrain from saying what I think about your idea of how to "do mathematics correctly".
jowiar 12y ago
> those tests are consequential to the kids future Most of them aren't. Especially in college. > lets be real: they're probably not Welcome to the REAL problem in education. We fight wars over the right to education, and then when we have it, we piss all over it? > You're probably lucky if even %10 are there because they want to be there. If we stopped obsessing over the damn tests, we might make some progress on this. It's a failing of culture and of teaching that students don't want to learn. I'd much rather have a country full of people who enjoy learning than people who learn only at metaphorical gunpoint, and spend their lives trying to avoid it. If they're a couple years behind at 18, so be it. I'll take the learners at 25 any day.