Testing philosophies

[poohma]

I know a few curriculums that use the testing philosophy of taking the test over and over again until the students get the correct answers (giving them half credit for the correct answers on the second or third attmepts). What is the benefit of doing this? Isn't this an inaccurate way of evaluating whether a student learned it well the first time? If they were in public school, they would only get one chance.

 

Also, what is the philosophy of the "open book" test? If a student takes open book tests in math, how will they learn to remember the formulas and key definitions and such when they don't have the book?

 

Thanks for your thoughts?

[Ali in OR]

On the second question, the philosophy of the open book test is that knowing the formulas isn't the important part. In real life you get to look up the formulas you need, but you need to know which ones are useful for your problem and how to use them correctly. I had open book tests in college, and believe me, they were typically more difficult than no-book tests. You are really tested on how you can reason and apply those formulas. Obviously an open book test isn't appropriate when you're still at a level that knowing the formula is important. Basic area and perimeter type stuff--closed book. Advanced engineering stuff--open book. I could see giving an open book test in high school just so the students will learn how to use the resource that is their math book. Having taught high school math, I can tell you that there would be many students who would have difficulty finding what they need even if the test is open book.

[milovany]

What is the benefit of doing this? Isn't this an inaccurate way of evaluating whether a student learned it well the first time?

 

You have to ask yourself what your goal is -- doing well on a test, or making sure the student knows & understands the material. If retaking so that they learn the material helps them to know and understand, to *me* that trumps doing well on a test. It depends on your testing philosophy.

 

If they were in public school, they would only get one chance.

 

 

Not necessarily true. In fact I'm sitting in on a university level class right now on classroom assessments (for students training to be teachers), and the teacher is VERY big on *not* making the student think they only have one chance. Not all students test well on written tests, and there are other ways to assess their learning. So he's a big advocate of finding what works for the student, and if that's having them sit down one on one after they've tanked a test, letting them explain their thoughts verbally (and they do well by doing it that way) on letting that count. He's teaching these student teachers a philosophy of not pressuring students with a "one time one way" testing approach (and this is the biggest teacher training college in our state).

[TravelingChris]

I graduated public high school and both my geometry and my physics teachers allowed corrections on the test for half credit. This was not taking the test over again, just correcting errors. I do that with my kids who I grade- only high schoolers.

 

Now there is a separate issue of what is the test testing? IF you give a test designed to test learning and a child gets many wrong on the test, you could decide that they didn;t learn. You may not be right. The test may be invalid- namely if you gave the test to many students, most wouldn't get it right not because they are stupid or lazy but because a given test is not testing their knowledge but something else. I took graduate level research methodology classes and learned quite a bit about this problem. FOr example, do you know why so many colleges are going to test optional? Because whatever the SAT and to a lesser extent the ACT tests, it isn't how well you will do in college. Study after study says you can figure that out much better by grades and courses taken in high school. NOw there is a large group of kids who get good grades and good test scores and take good classes. SO there is an overlap there. But if a college comes up with one student who is doing better in school and has a lower test score than the second who has done somewhat less well in school but aced the test, they should pick the better student every time if they want people to graduate from their colleges.

[IsabelC]

I have no idea about the repeated testing thing. But there are several sensible reasons for open book tests.

 

 

• they are more relevant to real life situations in many cases
  
• they are more difficult to study for (you have to understand the material, not just memorize a list of stuff)
  
• if you don't mostly know and remember the material, having reference works won't help you much in any case
  
• it removes the bias against students who panic under pressure and forget small but essential bits of info
  
• it reduces the bias usually caused by some students cheating
  

 

[Carrie12345]

I have ds re-do his incorrect answers, but it has nothing to do with grades (I only give grades in math and Latin). I want to know whether he made a true mistake or really didn't know the answer. If he didn't know, then we have to work on learning. If it was a simple mistake, then I don't have to worry about it... but I will "bust" him for being careless. ;)

[poohma]

Thanks for all your thoughtful comments on this issue.

 

I guess when I was in high school we did not have open book tests for high school math (for instance) and we were expected to remember all the formulas and such--and we still did fairly well.

 

I guess I am afraid that if the students get too many chances to do self-correction (after the first test) they will not try to learn the material as well the first time around (because they know they have more chances) which is not a habit I would like to instill in my kids.

 

Or, with open book tests, they won't memorize certain important information because they know they can always find it in the book. I think they should try to memorize some of the formulas. I want them to know how to pick up important material the first time around, and not keep thinking they have another chance later. I don't think life always gives them second chances.

 

And then, when they are taking the SATs for college, there will be no textbook next to them to hand them the formulas and theorems for Geometry or Algebra. What then?

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[LauraGB]

You have to ask yourself what your goal is -- doing well on a test, or making sure the student knows & understands the material. If retaking so that they learn the material helps them to know and understand, to *me* that trumps doing well on a test. It depends on your testing philosophy.

 

 

.

:iagree: I don't give grades at all (my state doesn't require it, and I don't like doing it). My goal is that my dc learn the material. The tests help *me* see what they still need work with. But other than that, they are just worksheets to the dc. I can tell what they have retained just by conversing with them - something teachers don't have the luxury of doing, thus The Test.