|
Post by Umbra on Apr 15, 2012 20:10:55 GMT -5
We know it's cost efficient and makes the teacher's job and the student's job easier, but is multiple choice-based testing really a good thing for schools?
I think multiple choice testing doesn't allow for a true testing of a student's knowledge. Not only can someone pick E, all of the above, and sometimes be right, but by providing different answers to choose from, a student can associate by memory to pick the correct answer. It is fair in that it has some mercy if someone forgets a term, but it is too lenient. (Though I'd say the most lenient testing method is matching.)
I think that for a student to have complete mastery of a subject, they should be able to write in their own answers. Granted, it's a lot harder, and would make the people who normally have C's drop to F's, but an A+ on a write-in test shows a lot more achievement, in my opinion, than an A+ on a multiple choice test. It shows that you know the material inside and out. If someone randomly asked you what a certain term meant, you could tell them instantly--the terminology would be in your dialogue; whereas someone who aced a multiple choice test might know the answer, but may be a little unsure, or they'd tell you they think what they said is right.
I know I'm generalizing--I know there are people who ace multiple choice tests that would do just as well on write-in tests, but I just used this example to show contrast.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 15, 2012 20:17:54 GMT -5
Yeah, the first thing that goes through my mind when a professor says the test will be multiple choice is, "Oh, okay, so I just need to be able to recognize the right answer." Recognizing is quite different from knowing. Essays are probably the best way to judge mastery of the material, as you said.
Interestingly, I know a lot of people who hate MC testing because they claim they end up finding a lot of answers that can both be correct. I've never had this problem, though. I think if the correct answer was obvious to me, then their difficulty probably comes down to them not knowing the material as well as they should have. If there's one thing MC tests are really good at, it's making you second-guess yourself if you didn't study enough.
|
|
|
Post by Umbra on Apr 15, 2012 20:39:49 GMT -5
And a lot of the time, it will be written on the test to choose the answer that BEST answers the question. So when you have two answers that may both have some correctness in them, only one choice is the true answer. I don't think it's ever the case that there is more than one correct answer for MC unless the instructor slipped up and has to allow it because a student makes a good case an alternate answer.
Anyway, I think that MC is still useful for practice tests and for studying, but not for academic tests.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 15, 2012 20:43:35 GMT -5
This is tangential, but slightly related: SATs and ACTs. Do you believe they measure anything?
|
|
|
Post by Umbra on Apr 15, 2012 20:50:02 GMT -5
The ability to write in answers as fast as you can is what I'd say they test.
But not everyone is a computer. SAT/ACT aren't very good testers of intelligence, Bill Gates aside.
|
|
|
Post by supersonic1453 on Apr 15, 2012 21:02:14 GMT -5
I like it when tests actually have two right answers. My dad does that for his tests.
|
|
|
Post by Umbra on Apr 15, 2012 21:22:29 GMT -5
The only reason I can see for having two right answers is to make the test easier, and multiple choice is already easy enough.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 15, 2012 21:28:53 GMT -5
Actually, SAT/ACT measures are fairly well correlated with IQ scores.
I'm pretty supportive of standardized testing. Schools are of such varying quality across the US that it's really hard to compare students from different places with the same GPA and determine who is more academically talented than the other. One school's A may be a C somewhere else. How else are colleges supposed to know you're actually capable of work? Standardized testing isn't a perfect system, of course, but it's a hell of a lot better measure than just relying on grades alone. Grades mean very little in the big picture. I know this from experience, too... I went to four different high schools, and all you needed to do for an A at one of the schools was to show up for class and not cuss out the teacher. There were no tests or homework because there was no point in assigning any; the kids simply wouldn't do it, so teachers didn't even bother. It was a joke. (Another school I went to eschewed traditional grades altogether in favor of "effort grades." Even more useless. In fact, don't even get me started on effort grades. I could write a book on it.)
Of course, this isn't to say I don't think those tests have problems, of course. They can't predict perfectly. They can't tell that a kid got a poor verbal score on the SAT actually has amazing intellectual potential, but grew up surrounded by uneducated people with impoverished vocabularies. Nor can they tell how much drive someone has. Maybe the kid with the 36 ACT score will flunk out his first semester of college because he's a lazy bum who can't budget his time, or the kid with an average SAT will carry a 4.0 because she works hard.
But all even with those problems, they're the best standard we have right now to compare individuals as objectively as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Zelar on Apr 15, 2012 21:38:32 GMT -5
Multiple Choice Tests are:
A) Easier then most tests B) Not very effective C) Good D) All of the above E) None of the above F) IDK but I like kitties G) IDK but I don't like kitties
|
|
|
Post by supersonic1453 on Apr 16, 2012 7:53:32 GMT -5
The only reason I can see for having two right answers is to make the test easier, and multiple choice is already easy enough. Well, it's the trick people into insecurity. I also like making every answer on the test the same letter/number.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 16, 2012 13:53:53 GMT -5
My Latin teacher would purposely make the answers on his test things like AAAAA, ABABAB, and ABCDEABCDE just to f*ck with people.
|
|
|
Post by Umbra on Apr 16, 2012 19:41:37 GMT -5
I still don't think SAT and ACT correlate well to intelligence because it tests only one part of an individual's intelligence, the ability to compute and provide technical answers. It doesn't test creative or artistic intelligence, which is why I think it's unfair (unless the essay portion qualifies as creative writing, but I wouldn't call it that.)
I for one did horrible on the SAT, but I don't think it means that I didin't deserve the A's I had at the time in English, Math, or even Band class.
Plus, I like to take my time on assignments and tests--it probably has to deal with the type of learner I am. The SAT didn't accommodate for that. 25 minutes to write an essay is a little unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 10:10:04 GMT -5
I think it's good , & yeah it makes an easier job for the teachers & student.....but it also make it easier for the cheaters as well...
that's the only disadvantage I see...
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 17, 2012 15:01:48 GMT -5
I still don't think SAT and ACT correlate well to intelligence because it tests only one part of an individual's intelligence, the ability to compute and provide technical answers. It doesn't test creative or artistic intelligence, which is why I think it's unfair (unless the essay portion qualifies as creative writing, but I wouldn't call it that.) Alright, let me rephrase: they correlate well with academic intelligence. Creative and artistic intelligence, while interesting, are not going to be as strong of a predictor of collegiate success and ability to comprehend material, which colleges are looking for. There isn't an objective way to measure those qualities anyway, imo, so calling the SAT and ACT out on not testing them is probably pretty pointless. I think if people are creatively, aristically, athletically, etc. intelligent, that should shine through via their extracurriculars (which, believe me, colleges do look at. A lot). I'm not saying you didn't deserve them. But the fact remains that your A is a lot different from an A some kid gets for just showing up to class in an inner city school. There has to be some way to differentiate the two of you. Determining admittance based on grades is probably actually one of the least fair and reliable ways to do it, imo. Well, doesn't giving more time sort of defeat the point? Most people could probably do quite well on the SAT if it gave more time. If someone needs a long time to process and comprehend a certain part of the test, perhaps it's not their best area. I blazed through the verbal section of the SAT with tons of time to quadruple check my work, but I'm extremely slow and methodical in math. I was usually penciling in the last answer just as time ran out in the math section. If I was given all the time in the world to do the SAT, I would probably get every answer right, but I don't. My lower score reflects that I'm not as good at math as the guy going off to MIT, as it should.
|
|
|
Post by Umbra on Apr 17, 2012 15:51:46 GMT -5
I still don't think SAT and ACT correlate well to intelligence because it tests only one part of an individual's intelligence, the ability to compute and provide technical answers. It doesn't test creative or artistic intelligence, which is why I think it's unfair (unless the essay portion qualifies as creative writing, but I wouldn't call it that.) Alright, let me rephrase: they correlate well with academic intelligence. Creative and artistic intelligence, while interesting, are not going to be as strong of a predictor of collegiate success and ability to comprehend material, which colleges are looking for. There isn't an objective way to measure those qualities anyway, imo, so calling the SAT and ACT out on not testing them is probably pretty pointless. I think if people are creatively, aristically, athletically, etc. intelligent, that should shine through via their extracurriculars (which, believe me, colleges do look at. A lot). I don't think collegiate success, or at least proficiency with English and Math which the standardized tests test should be an over-weighing factor on determining admittance to a college. If you're college for the arts, your creativity should be tested, first and foremost. I don't think an A in art class, music theory, or creative writing show anything as does a piece of work from one of those classes. Bottom line, I think a demonstration of someone's creativity should be the determining factor of admittance for someone going to college to fulfill their creative aspirations , not their success with standardized test scores. Well, doesn't giving more time sort of defeat the point? Not really. I can't write a decent essay in 25 minutes, but I can write a 10-page essay in 3 weeks that I receive an A for. I work better when I have a generous amount of time. For most of my tests, I can allocate my time because I'm given a fair amount of it.
|
|