Talk:Standardized testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Contents

[edit] A discussion

june 30 update:

I noticed my attempt at a well-thought definition was removed with the reason being POV.

Before removing it agai, please be respectful enough to discuss my criteria, which I had already offered at the time (see below), and consider just whether POV is actually existant in the words of my definition.

What is the POV? I what words does it exist? I would argue that the only presence of POV may be placed in the juxtaposition of 'in theory' and 'in practice.' However, the POV is not expressed; any reader may bring their own POV to the juxtaposition of 'theory' and 'practice'; the juxtaposition between 'theory' and 'practice' also serves to introduce the very existance of controversy surrounding this subject.

I again want to emphasise that this article is not about testing: it is about STANTDARDIZED testing. The defininf difference between testing and standardized testing is precisely to see to it that the people taking the test are examined by the same criteria. this concept is not explicitly stated in the definition that you reverted to. it is explicitly stated in the definition I offer. however, what you considered POV, i.e. perhaps the words 'in theory' is actually a way to be objective. a subjective definition would omit 'in theory' and incorrectly state that standardized tests examine aptitude and knowledge with the same criteria across different isntitutions. the fact that there is such controversy dictates that we cannot state that. what we must state is the tests are meant to accomplish.

Again, please do not remove the definition based on POV unless you explicitly describe what is the POV in these 2 sentences, or unless you can strongly claim that these 2 sentences are not factual:

1):in theory: a tool to ensure that student knowledge and aptitude in a given subject are examined with the same criteria across different schools.

2):in practice: a test used across schools, mostly composed of multiple-choice and true-false quizzes, and short-answer or essay writing requirements which are assigned a score by people other than the student's teacher."

Passaggio, june 30 2006

previous crtiria as stated: I'd like to xplain criteria for definition I put in.

"in theory: a tool to ensure that student knowledge and aptitude in a given subject are examined with the same criteria across different schools.
in practice: a test used across schools, mostly composed of multiple-choice and true-false quizzes, and short-answer or essay writing requirements which are assigned a score by people other than the student's teacher."

I believe the first def. should be a "snapshot." While i agree with the previous def., which i simply left there following my snapshot, i think the 2 items i used to introduce Stand. tstng are critical, because:

the purpose of having standardized tests -what they're for- is integral to what they are. you don't describe a juicer to a martian without telling them it's made for squeezing juice.

if we didn't indicate what standardized testing is for, we'd be left with just a def. of testing, as opp. 2 a def. of standardized testing. One could argue that the diff. is just that standardized = same test across diff. institutions, but i believe this would fall unduly short of the real definition, to say least.

as 4 indicating immediately the typical elements that compose standardized tests and the scoring that sets them apart compared to other tests, they are the very definition of a "snapshot" of just what it is, and with that in mind, the reader sees this without having to scroll down into any kind of "learn more" mode. (though hopefully they will scroll down & learn more!)

again, i think this way it's a true snapshot.

still not very familiar w/ wikipedia, thank you all 4 it!

ibiji.com Passaggio 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to refine the definition, incorporating your points. The format of your changes are not in keeping with standard Wikipedia format. I think the content is reasonable, so I have tried to retain the essential points. Holon 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Older talk is at Talk:Standardized test.

This should be called standardized testing as public policy or something like that, shouldn't it? There's little about standardized testing per se, here. --Larry Sanger

Yes. Vicki Rosenzweig

Moved the public policy stuff--it now gets a "see also" on this page--and wrote a quick-and-dirty piece on this subject. Please look at it for bias and gaps.

Looks like a great improvement, and a good example of why Wikipedia works (a lot of the time).  :-) --Larry Sanger

If there are no objections, I'm going to put a merge tag on this article. There's another article called Standardized test and I don't think they're both necessary. My own opinion is that this article is more descriptive, but I don't know enough about the subject to feel right doing it myself.

Rhesusmanrhesusman 17:31 UTC 17 April 2005

I agree they need to be merged. The question is which name should the resulting article have? The naming conventions don't seem to give any preference of a gerund form over a noun or vice versa. The subject "Test" should technically be about the test itself and "Testing" is technically about the application and use of the test, but I suppose either article could cover all the material to avoid overlap. Other factors include that this article has a much shorter edit history, possibly meaning that is the more favored name, but also possibly it is just a better connected article. Anyone have good experience from other articles to guide this decision? I'm willing to do the merge if we agree on which way to do it. - Taxman 13:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
It looks like someone brought in the cleanup task force to work on this one, but I think the other one needs cleanup more. I wouldn't have a problem with the two articles being fixed so they do indeed talk about separate things, such as one talking about the tests themselves and the other talking about such testing as a public policy. I myself don't care which outcome is chosen, so long as we don't have duplicate articles.

Rhesusman 17:30 UTC 17 April 2005

[edit] Clean up task force in action

I have made start at this be adding 'Standardized test' to the bottom of 'Standardized testing', and included new headings with stubs for History of Standardized testing, Links and References. I have my suspicions that some of the text might be a copyvio for the following code - &#8211 - appears twice in it. I have never met this before in any editing work I have done and feel its been imported from an outside document. I do not know enough about the subject to do very much more, other than add the paragraph about the political impact of standardized testing in the UK. Apwoolrich 07:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links?

Does anyone think links to articles on specific standardized tests like the GCSE, SAT, GRE, etc at the bottom are appropriate? Rhesusman 07:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There was many inappropriate links on this page - commercial sites, message boards etc. I think it is the correct thing to do to remove them. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Cheers. --PhilipO 20:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that I follow you. I was talking about linking to articles about other standardized tests, something that some people might find relevant to this article. I wasn't talking about offsite links. Rhesusman 22:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh - ok. Not sure about internal links. Was only talking about the links off site. Cheers. --PhilipO 01:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Standardized test/ing" isnt just for education

Not really a big moan since Im not sure how the document needs to be edited - but I just want to say that Standardized tests/Assessments arent just in education as the article quite strongly hints. Its just one of several areas - for example standardized Assessments are used throughout medicine/healthcare to measure achievement/loss in functioning. Education is just one branch - feel it needs to be better stated thats all!

Willwade 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GCSEs

I'm not quite sure how this could be improved myself without removing the mention of GCSEs, but having taken those exams myself, I can assure you that there are no multiple choice questions in any one I've ever seen. Furthermore, in subjects such as English, there are no clearly defined right or wrong answers on the mark scheme; the examiner is expected to exercise judgment in determining whether a particular response has met the assessment criteria.

Vneiomazza 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Standardized Tests

"The earliest evidence of standardized testing based on merit comes from China during the Han dynasty (1993)."

Can anyone verify the correct year to accompany this statement? Looking up "Imperial Examination" in wikipedia, it states that the examinations began in the Sui Dynasty in 605 CE, rather than the Han Dynasty.

Thanks. Jaime Willis jwillisATgmail.com

[edit] Reference

Reischauer, E. O., & Fairbank, J. K. (1958). East Asia: The Great Tradition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 106-107

Craig Bolon 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagueness and lack of references

This article is riddled with unverifiable knowledge and vague terminology. Anything not referenced, redundant, or vague will be removed. I will also attempt to remove the references to schools in the attempt to broaden the context. Chris53516 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this garbage?:

"Perhaps the simplest advantage of standardized tests is that they are standardized." [No kidding, they're called STANDARDIZED TESTS. This is a very poorly constructed sentence, and I believe it is a fallacy of definition. You are using part of the term in its definition.]
"While some people may systematically score lower on certain tests, these differences will be systematic." [No really?? You didn't provide any new information. You described the score distribution as systematic by using the term "systematically." AND how on Earth is this an ADVANTAGE??]
"On the opposite end of the spectrum, scores on subjective tests change significantly according to whoever is grading them. In the case of college admissions, for example, interviews with prospective students have been repeatedly shown to predict later college performance no better than chance, while statistical measures such as prior GPA or SAT scores are much more accurate." [Where are you getting this information?? Do you know these things as a fact?]

I think I'm going to revert this article to standardized test. It seems like there were two types of authors, and one apparently knew what he/she was writing about and cited his/her references. By changing the name, it will align with norm-referenced test and criterion-referenced test. Chris53516 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)