Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests • Hacker News Board

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#101

Post by crazygringo » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:15 PM UTC

CognitiveLens wrote: post #36

I'm amazed at the short-sightedness apparent in this article and in some of the comments here. Yes, the American public education system is broken and is to a large extent too focused on poorly-constructed standardized testing, but imagining that 1) the system used to be better for students, 2) the resources exist for universal project-based learning/assessment, and 3) project-based learning/assessment would fix many…

> it's testing whether you can read an instruction manual, which is actually an important skill that can be difficult to assess through project-based learning.

This is the key thing that the article willfully ignores. And the whole point is to not confuse this with whatever you think you know about microscopes from your experience.

Indeed, it's a very valuable skill to be able to read and interpret any kind of text without letting your preconceptions get in the way. You don't want low-level nuclear plant technicians ignoring or misunderstanding written safety procedures based on what they think is their own personal understanding of the plant from experience...

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#102

Post by gcheong » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:21 PM UTC

exDM69 wrote: post #99

gcheong wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manufactered in China, but designed and prototyped in the US. Which would you rather have your kids doing?

How long do you think the situation is sustainable? I'd prefer my kids be proficient with power tools, computers and pen & paper, all of them are necessary.

I completely agree. I would say that the situation is sustainable if we are careful not to lose the whatever advantage we have and if we invest in finding new ones but also very tenuous given the global nature of our world today and the nature of the competition that is arising.

In case I misunderstood, I agree that losing the classes you mention could very well mean losing our edge in design and invention but losing spec work to factories in China is not a very good argument to keep those classes.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#103

Post by byoung2 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:35 PM UTC

Having spent a decade of my life in for-profit education, specifically standardized test preparation (Sylvan, Kaplan, College Network, Grockit, Veritas Prep), I can say that there is more data that could be collected from tests. For example, instead of looking who got the "right" answer, you could look at which wrong answers people selected and why. For example, students who chose "A" probably have experience with microscopes, perhaps don't read instructions carefully.

More interestingly, you could learn a lot about a student's thought process by analyzing the time spent on a particular question, or whether they chose another answer choice before settling on one, or whether It's possible that the computer adaptive exams (GRE, GMAT, NCLEX, etc.) take this into account because the computer can collect this data, but paper and pencil tests simply cannot.

A student who chose answer choice "A" after 5 seconds is probably careless or overconfident, whereas a student who chose "A" after a minute of waffling between "A" and "C" possibly lacks confidence.

I think standardized tests could become a lot more useful if we could collect more data from them.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#104

Post by CodeMage » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:38 PM UTC

larrys wrote: post #52

jellicle wrote: post #19

Sigh. You need both. The reality is that there's a lot of book-learning in the world. You're never going to build a rocket to the moon by starting in your backyard with some sheet metal - your lifespan isn't long enough if you take that approach. You have to read books written by people who have gone before, and learn from their mistakes, which you can do at a far more rapid pace than you can by making all those mist…

"Before I get downvoted into oblivion" Why is it always necessarily to add this? It's like "I apologize in advance but I'm going to insult you". As an aside I was wondering this morning if people who down vote read an entire comment or downvote on the first negative thing they don't like, disagree with etc. If that is the case you would think that putting your last sentence (sans the bigdio) would suffice as a prophy…

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I see that as a form of passive aggressive manipulation. The way I read that kind of comment is "I know the mob will downvote me instead of discussing the topic; you don't want to be part of the mob, do you now?"

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#105

Post by dugmartin » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:41 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #7

cryptoz wrote: post #4

I remember taking a standardized test in public elementary school in the US (I think this was the Iowa series). At the end of one section I finished early, I counted the number of questions and was planning on finding out some basic stats on the questions. We hear "pencils down", and so the break period comes around. I comply, and the teacher collects our tests. I then picked up my pencil again and started doing a bu…

Reminds me of my primary school's request to my parents that they stop me from having access to books at home as it was making me difficult to teach.

Reminds me of my first grade teacher telling me to stop signing my papers in (neat) cursive as I wasn't supposed to know how to do that until the end of the year.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#106

Post by beefman » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:48 PM UTC

Comments here so far seem to agree that the article goes too far, that we need both abstract and experiential learning in schools, and the article misunderstood the purpose of the microscope test question (reading comprehension).

Yes, we do need both abstract and experiential learning. But we need different ratios of them at different ages. Teenagers are much better at abstract learning than young children, and young children are much better at learning skills than teenagers or adults. That is why young children can be piano prodigies, become multilingual, etc. There is nothing wrong with book learning, but it is currently close to 100% of the school day in our elementary schools. At least 50% of class time should be devoted to practicing skills at this age -- painting, singing, playing drums, athletics, building robots. With four years to learn something like physics in university, 100% book learning makes more sense.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#107

Post by InclinedPlane » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:53 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #19

Sigh. You need both. The reality is that there's a lot of book-learning in the world. You're never going to build a rocket to the moon by starting in your backyard with some sheet metal - your lifespan isn't long enough if you take that approach. You have to read books written by people who have gone before, and learn from their mistakes, which you can do at a far more rapid pace than you can by making all those mist…

I think you come from a false premise. The idea that "book learning" can be successfully measured through standardized testing does not have as much backing as you think it does.

One of the big problems of standardized testing and school in general the way we've been doing it is that you can inculcate a great deal of pseudo-knowledge, and you can probe for its existence through these targeted tests, but in many cases you fail at instilling true understanding and knowledge.

Math and science becomes rote memorization of formulas and terms and plug-and-chug. But this isn't learning.

A classic example of the problems involved here is to go ask a bunch of recent college graduates about where the mass of a tree comes from. Even if you only ask people who have studied photosynthesis, you'll still get an abysmally low percentage of correct answers, if any. The same goes for any question on any topic that's covered in college which requires actual understanding and thorough application of the alleged "knowledge" that the students have acquired.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#108

Post by javajosh » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #60

raganwald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writer's complaint is daft. The purpose is to test if you can read a passage and comprehend it. Has nothing to do with microscopes. From my understanding of cognitive science, the question asked is deeply flawed if you want to test comprehension without testing knowledge of microscopes. One approach to answering questions like this is to build a little model in your head of what is being described. You then answe…

> One approach to answering questions like this is to build a little model This test question isn't testing that. > What I’m saying is that answering this question well requires experience with microscopes or similar devices. It sure doesn't. It requires you to be able to read and comprehend text. That's it. The subject could have been Martian fizzbozzles instead of microscopes. > Being able to answer the question wi…

> It requires you to be able to read and comprehend text. That's it. The subject could have been Martian fizzbozzles instead of microscopes.

And therein lies a great fallacy which is still widely believed in our post-Enlightenment world. But the map is not the terrain. A mental model cannot be completely represented with words or pictures, or anything. Words and pictures, even good ones chosen for pedagogical value, are only pale projections of a complex thing onto a flat surface.

>Anyone who can read and comprehend text can answer it with no prior knowledge of the subject.

Without qualification, this statement is strictly false. There may be certain kinds of text that can be comprehended with no prior knowledge of the subject if you assume a certain baseline of internalized knowledge. There are many old parlor games (which have sadly gone out of style) which rely on hacking this qualification. For example, one of them requires that one person follow the instructions of another. One person tries to describe how to draw a particular geometric figure. The person doing the drawing must follow the instruction, but they also are free (in fact encouraged) to ignore the intention of the instruction. It's a game that puts the difference between words and reality up-front and center.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#109

Post by krschultz » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #86

Not sure that the article conveys the message well, but I agree vehemently with the sentiment of the article's sub-heading (the title of the HN post). Standardized tests do a great job of ensuring we end up with standardized kids that will safely perpetuate the status quo.

As a side note - I can tell Slate A/B tests their headlines because I originally read this on a mobile device with one header, then opened it on my desktop and it had a different header. The subheader was constant so I chose that as the title for this submission.

Re: Kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests

#110

Post by fennecfoxen » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #44

CognitiveLens wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a reading comprehension question. Read the text provided: "To avoid crushing the glass slide when focusing, begin with the lens close to the specimen" The microscope lens should initially be placed close to the glass slide: C. To avoid breaking the glass slide when adjusting the focus.

"The microscope lens should initially be placed close to the glass slide: C. To avoid breaking the glass slide when adjusting the focus." Incidentally that statement only sense if you know which direction to turn the focus knob, and you recognize the fact that the hypothetical microscope is capable of crushing the specimen. I had one when I was a kid that was incapable of doing so. I answered the question correctly,…

Blah blah blah blah. "To avoid crushing the glass slide when focusing, begin with the microscope close to the specimen and then gradually back off to focus." Blah blah blah blah.

Utterly incomprehensible!