What Do Y'all Think Of Standardized Testing? - Page 6

What Do Y'all Think Of Standardized Testing?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 56 of 56
Thank Tree52Thanks

This is a discussion on What Do Y'all Think Of Standardized Testing? within the Education & Career Talk forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by t4u6 What you are saying is in theory teaching is a fluid process where both sides can ...

  1. #51

    Quote Originally Posted by t4u6 View Post
    What you are saying is in theory teaching is a fluid process where both sides can see what's wrong and adjust over time. What I am trying to say is in reality there is no opportunity allowing the students to make things right even if they receive feedback from their scores.
    I disagree. getting a quiz/test through the course that shows you really suck at a step in a process is your cue to study or get help. When the final comes, you have a good chance at passing that skill if you chose to act on that. If you chose not to, you can expect to demonstrate the same deficit. I supose it matters more what the gradign policies are, and how much weight does a quiz and chapter test have, vs the final. Many advanced courses give little or no credit for a quiz or chapter test, it's all about the final, which demonstrates you learned and retained the material. Those quiz's and chapter tests are for you, to steer your focus, to give you feedback. Failing one is information, just as passing one is also information.

    I used to ask a lot of questions in class to my classmates and teachers alike. Why the equation has to be formalized in this particular way? Why light has to travel in straight line? Who said so? etc etc. The answer I was told: "That's the way it is you just have to accept it and memorise it." Is that learning? Not for me personally and I still don't understand why light has to travel in a straight line, not until I read about quantum physics in recent years what I was taught in class about light and atom are simply wrong among many other things.
    Some course work doesn't have the time or capacity to answer all questions, some learning has to be "accept the following fact". Learning about gravity in 1st grade shouldn't involve a discussion about quantum mechanics. Within that lesson, some fact must be presented as "just accept this for now..." I remember having to accept may constants in engineering lectures, several times the instructor was asked how the constant was developed. Usually we didn't have time to discuss it, we were just told to accept and move on. Once we explored one, it was futile. Most of us didn't have the educational background at that point to understand the correct answer to "why?". We learned that stuff later in the course, then it made sense.


    These standardized tests are typically done at the end of semester or academic year and personally I did learn from my mistakes but I wasn't allowed to take the test on the same materials again and so my shitty score stays on my record (my first and only attempt allowed).
    The test was measuring your ability to use what you learned, not recite verbatim on problems you have already seen and had chance to memorize. It wouldn't make much sense to measure comprehension by giving the same prep test 5 times through the course, and then giving the same one as a final. That only measures your ability to memorize correct answers, it doesn't' demonstrate comprehension.


    Everyone has already moved on so what's there for me as a student to adjust anyway? They are recurring loops with the same problems happening over and over again until either you drop school or you graduate. Luckily, I managed to graduate not because of the outstanding teaching ability of my teachers or the feedback I received from my scores but because I memorized the whole fucking thing and recited it on papers.
    Isn't the bolded the goal of learning anyway?
    t4u6 and Inis Mona thanked this post.

  2. #52

    By no means a measure of intelligence, negates the truth that different students have different sets of talents, likes and preferences. Boxes students into a one-size-fits-all that places immense pressure on both students and teachers. I'm against standardized testing as a matter of principle, I have long walked my own journey when it comes to learning and I will never let a standardized test (in the academic sense) have the verdict on whether I am smart or not. If anyone believes that you've got to be a good student and good at studying to be considered "smart", then I'm sure they're not the kind of person I'd get along really well with anyway. So yeah, standardized tests to me are an insult to the potential of humanity and a liability for all sides concerned. It becomes even darker when you see that some of the countries with the highest suicide rates in the world (Korea, Japan) have extremely rigid education systems where standardized tests very much determine your fate in life. Singapore and mainland China also have lots of deeply unhappy youth due to the immense pressure placed on them under the highly conformist education systems. In the US there's the SAT and ACT, sucks but many people choose not to go to college and end up fine. In Canada there isn't really any standardized testing so Canadians are lucky in this regard.

  3. #53

    Quote Originally Posted by chad86tsi View Post
    I disagree. getting a quiz/test through the course that shows you really suck at a step in a process is your cue to study or get help. When the final comes, you have a good chance at passing that skill if you chose to act on that. If you chose not to, you can expect to demonstrate the same deficit. I supose it matters more what the gradign policies are, and how much weight does a quiz and chapter test have, vs the final. Many advanced courses give little or no credit for a quiz or chapter test, it's all about the final, which demonstrates you learned and retained the material. Those quiz's and chapter tests are for you, to steer your focus, to give you feedback. Failing one is information, just as passing one is also information.



    Some course work doesn't have the time or capacity to answer all questions, some learning has to be "accept the following fact". Learning about gravity in 1st grade shouldn't involve a discussion about quantum mechanics. Within that lesson, some fact must be presented as "just accept this for now..." I remember having to accept may constants in engineering lectures, several times the instructor was asked how the constant was developed. Usually we didn't have time to discuss it, we were just told to accept and move on. Once we explored one, it was futile. Most of us didn't have the educational background at that point to understand the correct answer to "why?". We learned that stuff later in the course, then it made sense.




    The test was measuring your ability to use what you learned, not recite verbatim on problems you have already seen and had chance to memorize. It wouldn't make much sense to measure comprehension by giving the same prep test 5 times through the course, and then giving the same one as a final. That only measures your ability to memorize correct answers, it doesn't' demonstrate comprehension.




    Isn't the bolded the goal of learning anyway?
    Standardised testing is only a tool I don't really have a view on something neutral like when you ask me what do I think about a knife it's pointless, it depends when and how you use it. It's always about the people who use their authority to apply this tool on others and the circumstances under which it was applied.

    Anyway I see your point now and now I see where we differ. Since for you successfully memorizing materials without understanding them (as I did) is the "goal" of learning whereas for me this is an unacceptable standard. The goal should be striving for true understanding of what you learn (including how this knowledge being taught came about) and its application. If the teacher doesn't know everything it's OK to say so, but please don't tell / demand / expect the students to just accept and memorize what you teach on face value and ask them to take a leap of faith for you.

    I played reasonably well in this education game since my childhood until I got my master's degree but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the logic behind this game. I did it just because the society with people similar to your view believe in this kind of things and that's the only way to get ahead in most jobs.

    I'm totally fine with your view and I do not expect we have to agree with each other. After all these posts I just want to get to the bottom and know what your view is about this topic.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #54

    Quote Originally Posted by t4u6 View Post
    I'm totally fine with your view and I do not expect we have to agree with each other. After all these posts I just want to get to the bottom and know what your view is about this topic.
    Your assessment of my view is rather narrow, and subsequently rather incomplete.

    If you were able to recite it on papers, I'm going to take a leap here and presume it wasn't verbatim, that you took a comprehensive set of memorized data/facts/wherever (memorizing the fucking thing) and were able to articulate on paper a recitation those data/facts/whatever in a manor that demonstrated comprehension, by way of reciting them in proper context and in proper order. Had you elected to focus on the concepts alone rather than memorization, you might not do so well with the recitation portion or articulation of your subject understanding. Concepts need data/proof in most cases to back the concept.

    A person can study internal combustion engine theory and become a master at the general physics and engineering considerations, but without memorizing the details of actual engine assembly, they would likely fail at assembling an engine where memorizing where all the parts go, in what order, and using which assembly methods really matters more than just understanding the physics behind them. Theory leads to better conceptual understanding of how things work, but if you can't or won't memorize all the details of a subject, you probably don't have mastery of it.

    Standardized testing can measure memorization rather easily. This testing method will be leaned on a lot more with some subjects (concretes ones) and less on others (pure theory or subjective matters). Academia aims for mastery, not conceptual proficiency, hence testing standards rely a lot on being able to recite data in proper context and in proper order, rather than just reciting how a system functions in more generic terms.

    If you memorized all the information and were able to recite it properly, you met the ultimate goal of your education.

    For what it's worth, my learning style sounds similar to yours. I didn't do well with advanced math till I started to learn physics and theory that used that same math. When I could see how it was actually working (conceptualy), it became much easier to understand. I did not do well with just memorizing a set of formulas and rules that had no conceptual framework to use them with. My wife teaches college math, she cares nothing of what the math is used for, to her it's just a huge library or formulas and rules. Conceptually she doesn't care about what any of it is used for, and wish's students like myself didn't exist.
    t4u6 thanked this post.

  6. #55

    Whatever man. We each have our own experiences I expect nothing more.

    For me personally I thank you for taking the time to talk about this topic with me. It's good to know what's behind our different perspectives and I think our discussion makes things clearer than it first started. That's all I ever want. Good talking to you guys.
    Last edited by t4u6; 09-29-2019 at 09:17 PM.
    chad86tsi thanked this post.

  7. #56

    It's a good way of measure aptitude at the school curriculum. If we remove standardised testing, how else are we supposed to compare? If you do poorly, it's because either your effort, intelligence or the standard of teaching are not good enough for the exam. I also believe standardised testing helps you find where your strengths lie. It's very easy to criticise it, but I believe fundamentally it's the best method.

    I wouldn't say it's "no measure of intelligence" as you need a certain level of intelligence to do well on these exams. Obviously not all those who do poorly are destined to split rocks and whatnot


     
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-31-2020, 11:09 AM
  2. Do you think being possessive of people shows a lack of humility? What function(s) is
    By Emotionally scary mothers in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09-24-2019, 01:54 AM
  3. [INTJ] What do Intjs think about Intps? What do Intps think of Intjs? inb4 intj master race
    By Polk3456 in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 09:28 AM
  4. [INTJ] Where did/do you score highest on standardized tests?
    By Fudgecakesss in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-25-2012, 01:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0