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

#181

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 7:19 AM UTC

grannyg00se wrote: post #129

I find it hard to believe that the author had trouble with the question. The answer is provided perfectly in the supplied text. If I say that dogs bark when they are cold and then ask a five year old why dogs bark I think I'd be pretty disappointed if they couldn't regurgitate what I just said. Is it so different when written rather than spoken? Can we really be sure that this is a reading comprehension problem as op…

It's the way we're killing thinking in children.

If I say that dogs bark when they're cold and then ask a five year old why dogs bark, I'd expect something like, "when they're cold! and when they're angry! and when Amy [sister of this 5yo] steps on his tail, hahaha". Or whatever. Reality is not bound by what someone written or said few moments ago. If you want to test reading comprehension, you have to control for prior experience in the subject which might be (and probably often is) greater than test author's.

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

#182

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 7:24 AM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #172

Well.. if 60% of pupils got the answer wrong, given the full explanation before the multiple choice answers, maybe it has more to do with reading ability than STEM disposition or method of questionning :/

Except that in real-life I wouldn't put the lens too close to the glass, because a) the microscope seems (by the description) to be able to crush the glass, and b) I wouldn't bet on myself remembering which way to turn the knob to raise the lens instead of lowering it.

IMO this is a thinking vs. saying what they want you to say problem. It pops up often when a kid has more experience with subject matter than the test author.

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

#183

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 7:30 AM UTC

jpiasetz wrote: post #144

Title is misleading. Articles seems to be picking on one particular standardized test. Does anyone want to invest in a startup that doesn't believe in collecting metrics let alone A/B testing? Why would anyone besides the teachers union advocate for no standardizing tests then? Sure testing sucks in a lot of places but that's not an argument against the idea of benchmarking.

It's not. You make what you measure. But it works both ways, because it's a feedback loop (otherwise measurements would be useless).

And standarized test are poorly calibrated to real understanding and makes the whole school system produce more and more dumb kids with each year.

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

#184

Post by Tichy » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 8:54 AM 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…

"Standardized tests try to package the assessment of a wide range of fundamental skills into a relatively contained, standardized format so that skills are evaluated relative to some clear standard"

Ultimately, what is the point, though? Almost every day there are articles about hiring on Hacker News. Not once have I read the advice to look at the results of the applicant in the standardized school tests. If the test results are not relevant in the real world, why cripple education by aligning it with the necessity to do such standardized tests.

I think at least for HN affine companies, "I have build a robot" would be a much better selling point than "I have high marks on the standard test". Intuitively somebody having too high marks might even raise my suspicions (little creativity and drive, just does what he is told without questioning it etc.). Which is of course unfair, some people are simply good. But it is an emotion that arises.

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

#185

Post by EternalLight » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 11:28 AM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #108

jellicle wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

I understand what you're getting at, but that's not the case in this question, since one of the four answers are stated almost word for word in the text. (caution point 4)

The rest of the alternatives are "plausible guesses" which you might think are reasonable if you don't remember the point above. So what they're REALLY testing is if you read the text carefully enough to remember that line or not.

Actually having knowledge of microscopes are probably a bad thing on this particular question since you're likely to skip over the boring warning part, like I did when I quickly read the question just now.

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

#186

Post by puranjay » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 12:27 PM UTC

There are kids who want to build rockets, write plays and create art. Then there are kids who want to get jobs in IBM and HP.

I think we ought to give both these kids an equal opportunity to get what they want. It's wrong to assume that we all want to create; some of us are happy handling the running and the finances of someone else's creation.

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

#187

Post by macspoofing » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 12:48 PM UTC

kbolino wrote: post #43

macspoofing wrote: post #15

Yes, they should be. It also would be nice if they had personalized attention of highly qualified education professionals, as well. But they don't. The unions, bureaucracy, politics, and funding is what it is.

I think you are unwittingly peddling an insidious idea that may be just as bad, if not worse, than standardized testing. A "highly qualified education professional" is a disinterested drone whose only accomplishments were meeting the arcane state requirements for a teaching certificate. If you're really lucky, they might have been adept at stringing together a bunch of useless "research" conclusions into incoherent p…

>The qualities that make for a good teacher--intelligence, patience, curiosity, and creativity--are diametrically opposed to the qualities of a "highly qualified education professional.

You're reading too much into it. I meant a good, competent educator.

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

#188

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 12:51 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by jaldoretta » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 12:54 PM UTC

I think a lot of these comments are focusing on the wrong part of the text. I think what the author is really trying to convey is that taking standardized tests is not going to make a child want to grow up to build rockets or robots.

I'm a mechanical engineer and attended a technical university, and from my experience, most of the other students in technical fields are ones that grew up with an innate interest in building things and creating things. Not all children do things like that in their spare time. And not all parents give their children the opportunity to do things like that in their spare time.

Spending time in school taking standardized tests instead of performing scientific experiments and building things makes children bored with science and math. It is, very sadly, a wasted opportunity. Most children have no idea how exciting science and technology can be. All they know is sitting in class, reading books, working boring problems.

When a child gets to high school and starts applying (or not applying) for colleges, they are going to choose a subject that they remember being interesting. Most children that I have met do not find taking tests and reading about science to be interesting.

If children were more involved in the learning process through hands-on experiences, imagine the kind of excitement that would be generated among the young people. Imagine the kinds of things we would be capable of as a species if there were more people excited and invested in science and technology.

I realize that most of the readers of Hacker News were probably the children that grew up wanting to build and create. But there are so many children out there who need to be inspired in order to succeed, and those are the ones that are being failed by our flawed education system.

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

#190

Post by mmcnickle » Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 1:14 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 agree with sentiment of the author, and believe schools have sidelined physical learning to a frightening level. But this test is a comprehension test. If you look at the passage, then the question, you can clearly see what is being examined:

Passage

=======

3. Keep the stage clean and always use a glass slide for specimens.

4. To avoid crushing the glass slide when focusing, begin with the lens close to the specimen and gradually back off to focus.

Question with correct answer

============================

The microscope lens should initially be placed close to the glass slide: C. To avoid breaking the glass slide when adjusting the focus.

Aside from being able to correctly identify which part of the passage relates to the question (showing broad understanding of the passage of the whole) the specifics are:

a) Do you understand that "crushing" is synonymous with "breaking"?

b) Do you understand that you put the specimen on the glass slide?

c) Do you understand that "begin with ..." and "initially ..." are essentially the same construction?

d) Do you understand that "focusing" is the action of "back off to focus"

To me, the surprising thing was how well this question was written.

As an aside, I imagine these questions are purposefully written about a subject that the person being examined is expected to have little knowledge about, so that only the comprehension is being tested.