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

#131

Post by david_shaw » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

Here's my simple response to a particularly complicated (and touchy) issue: children that do extremely well on standardized tests, especially from an early age, do not need them. If you're consistently in the 90+ percentile in reading comprehension, critical thinking and mathematics from an early age, you are probably not only great at standardized tests, but an intelligent child to boot. These are the kids that should be playing with real-world physics applications (rockets) or rudimentary robotics (Lego Mindstorm).

If, however, you're a child that does consistently badly in these tests, it probably makes sense to get the book learning straight before venturing forth into the practical applications of math and science. After all, the point isn't supposed to be to play with rockets, it's to understand the physics behind them (right?).

Unfortunately, this is an unfair line to draw. Should smart kids get to play with cool science projects while the kids who are struggling--or who were sick on the day of the standardized test--are stuck inside studying "the basics" needed to understand these projects? Personally, I don't think that's fair line to draw.

The result? Everyone needs to be book smart, and hopefully, everyone should also build cool stuff with science.

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

#132

Post by shasta » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 6:54 PM UTC

CognitiveLens wrote: post #85

shasta wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So wait, you're saying the reason for the lens to begin close to the glass is the same reason the lens should begin close to the specimen? How did you come to that conclusion?

Context clues from the "How to" section steps 2-6.

Or you already knew how a microscope works, and performed that step implicitly like the rest of us did.

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

#133

Post by saraid216 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 6:55 PM UTC

simonbrown wrote: post #123

byoung2 wrote: post #103

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 mi…

How would this data be used?

Ideally, as student feedback.

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

#134

Post by smacktoward » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:01 PM UTC

richcollins wrote: post #111

smacktoward wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, this is an article from Slate , aka "News For Nervous Upper-Class White People". So it shouldn't shock you that they might not stop to consider how offensive "have the kids build robots!" might be to an educator in a school system that can't even afford to maintain reasonable class sizes, much less a robotics lab.

Robotics labs aren't expensive: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dap...

I'm not sure you realize just how strapped for cash most school districts are. The average K-12 teacher in the US spends around $350 out of their own pocket each year just to buy supplies like books, pencils and glue that schools and parents can't or won't pay for. Only 8% of teachers can get through a year without spending any of their own money on supplies. (http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/07/08/teachers-spend-1.3..., http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/most_teachers_spend_...)

If school districts can't afford to buy pencils, it's unlikely they can afford to buy robots, no matter how cheap the robots are.

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

#135

Post by danielweber » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:12 PM UTC

ericssmith wrote: post #16

I'm opposed to standardized tests more than most people, however I have to take issue with this article. The author of this article stated early on that this was a 'reading comprehension question', and then goes onto to critique the question as if it was about learning about microscopes. He also says that he 'couldn't figure it out' by guessing. He should've tried reading. As an aside, I did know the correct answer b…

I'm not too opposed to standardized tests, but I completely agree that they don't teach. That's what the rest of school is for. Saying "tests don't teach" is almost a tautology.

(Okay, when there is a reading comprehension section you will often learn something. That's just a bonus, though.)

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

#136

Post by raganwald » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:16 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #66

raganwald wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw that too. It doesn’t change the fact that understanding of the domain strongly biases the result of answering the question. What you’re saying is that it is possible to answer the question while staring bewildered at a device you have never seen or interacted with. What I’m saying is that it is much easier to answer the question if you have hands-on experience. And I think what the author is saying is that we s…

What you’re saying is that it is possible to answer the question while staring bewildered at a device you have never seen or interacted with. Based on my life experience so far; this is one of the most important skills to learn. What I’m saying is that it is much easier to answer the question if you have hands-on experience. Of course; but that isn't the point of the test. And I think what the author is saying is tha…

I agree with everything you are preaching about critical thinking. Personally, I don’t think this particular type of question is good at testing critical thinking, and worse I think that the incentives in the school system are all about gaming the test rather than teaching critical thinking.

My feeling looking at this is that if I wanted kids to get the highest possible score, I’d teach them how to take tests rather than buy them a bunch of tools and have them figure out how to use the tools from the instruction manuals (reading, critical thinking, problem solving). Whereas if I wanted them to learn critical thinking, we’d be solving problems with tools.

But I accept that this is a very large topic, it’s not like this is a one-question test, and students are exposed to a variety of stimuli. Also, there is always the democracy argument: This might be the worst test ever devised, except for all of the others we’ve tried. Perhaps this is the “least worst” way to test and teach given other factors in play.

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

#137

Post by kellishaver » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:33 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…

The author, I think, takes a pretty big leap in concluding that the test is being used as a teaching tool, rather than a testing tool. Stating that the students are now stuck learning about microscopes through the test, rather than actually using microscopes seems like quite a stretch to me. Of course kids still use microscopes in school and do lots of hands-on learning. Both types of learning are essential and both are practiced. Does our education system focus too much on testing and not enough on hands-on learning? Maybe, but I think that still varies a lot from school to school, so it's hard and perhaps a bit unfair to make overall assumptions.

However, it does illustrate how the test is a poor evaluation of reading comprehension.

The problem I see is that it's not necessarily a reading comprehension question. It's a question about microscopes. If you don't happen to know anything about microscopes, then the answer is clearly there in the text and, at that point, it's about reading comprehension, but if you do, reading the text is completely unnecessary. So then it remains a question about general knowledge of microscopes, not reading comprehension.

Here's another example... My husband got into IT when he was young and never finished his degree. He's now decided that he wants to go back to school for a related, but different-enough field that he needs that piece of paper and additional training. Because it's been over 20yrs since he's been in school, and he's never attended school in the US, at the age of 40, he found himself taking the ACT a couple of weeks ago.

The "reading comprehension" portion of the test was full of paragraphs about various topics that anyone with an average amount of general knowledge would know and so, being pressed for time, he simply didn't read half the material. He got a perfect score on this section of the test.

That clearly demonstrates a level of intelligence on a variety of topics, and probably indicates some good deductive reasoning as well, but it doesn't show how well his reading comprehension is at all.

Now, he's 40, not 12, but the ACT doesn't look that much different than any other standardized test and it is (along with the SAT) a sort of be all and end all of evaluating a high school student's academic performance.

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

#138

Post by nollidge » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:40 PM UTC

exDM69 wrote: post #58

hef19898 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of getting at least a small workshop in my house ASAP! Not the welding machines, I risk brning my house down myself, but at least a wood shop. Still remember the fun I had with my grandfather in his work shop (wood and later metal). Every kid should get that oppurtunity!

I live in a small cramped apartment, but I'd really like to do some wood works. So I bought some balsa wood and a few small tools to do some miniature models. It's not like doing real carpentry but will do until I get myself a shack to fit a band saw in.

Not sure where you live, but there might be a Makerspace nearby you can utilize.

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

#139

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:49 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…

So are you calling standardized tests "book learning" or "hands-on"??? I say these things devalue "book learning" as much as they devalue building things.

I would agree kids should be reading books, writing essays, writing math proofs and building robot but not doing (and endlessly preparing for) standardized tests. Comprehension isn't going to ever be fully exercised by multiple choice questions.

Seriously, the problems with standardized tests just don't allow them to be glossed over as "book learning" or any other way. The worst problem of standardized tests is they reduce teachers to proctors and game-strategists rather than demanding they have constructive engagement with their students.

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

#140

Post by pcote » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 7:55 PM UTC

pcote wrote: post #124

A lot of the discussion here focuses on critical thinking development which is an interesting topic. Does compulsory testing or even compulsory education in general do children any service in that regard? Are critical thinking skills better developed when a kid's education is self-directed? I think these are all fair questions. Personally, I'm a fan of self-directed learning but that doesn't mean I'm right. Still, it…

Someone didn't like my comment. Fair enough. I'll put it another way.

Are children, left to their own devices, naturally deficient when it comes to critical thinking?