Actually, writing test questions is very hard.
Actually, writing test questions is very hard.
(T)rue or (F)alse?
Marie-Claire Blais weeps with envy.
I don't know who that is! I was thinking more Agapē Agape.
I predict that you will like her. In fact I can't believe I didn't recommend her earlier. Cf. Augustino and the Choir of Destruction.
This was the kind of post where the location of the next Con was going to be embedded, right?
I got a math question thrown out when I took the SAT, I think it was something with roots and they forgot to include the +/- in what was supposed to be the correct answer. I mean, I'm sure others said something too but it was one I mentioned to the proctor then I got a letter that it was thrown out so I'm claiming causality.
Go SP!
From the linked article:
So according to the Test Development Center, it appears that it is acceptable to use scientifically correct answers for wrong responses on the Science FCAT as long as FLDOE does not expect a fifth grader to be educated enough to realize that the wrong answers are scientifically correct.
Y'know, if I squint really hard, I can sort of make out the outline of what they're trying to do here, and I can even kinda agree. But then I look at one of the examples, and I'm just boggled all over again:
This sample question offers the following observations, and asks which is scientifically testable.
1. The petals of red roses are softer than the petals of yellow roses.
2. The song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal.
3. Orange blossoms give off a sweeter smell than gardenia flowers.
4. Sunflowers with larger petals attract more bees than sunflowers with smaller petals.
I am fairly certain that a five-year-old of my close acquaintance would be able to answer this question. Not a fifth grader, a five-year-old. Florida, you are in Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with....oh, never mind.
Its possible that with the mania for testing over the past decade, all the good test questions have been used up, and we are now left with the dregs. We may well have hit peak test-question.
Clearly the question in 8 is training kids to recognize that they can intuit what test-writers are looking for. The answer is "one of these answers is phrased less like a kid talks and more like an adult talks". Then you know to look for that kind of difference in the future.
The answer is "one of these answers is phrased less like a kid talks and more like an adult talks"
Is that true? I have a hard time seeing that.
2. The song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal.
This is totally empirically testable.
11: Yes, because 1-3 sound like they might happen to me, a kid, and 4 sounds like someone talking about the relationship between two things that aren't me.
Spike, you actually made me chuckle.
Heebie, no, no -- clearly one must be able to see that science is manly, with none of those namby-pamby ladywords like softer, prettier, sweeter. Real Science is about tough, hard words like, uh, size.
Yes, because 1-3 sound like they might happen to me, a kid, and 4 sounds like someone talking about the relationship between two things that aren't me.
4 is also noticeably longer than the other three.
I know the answer, it must be
J) 1, 3, and 4
Real Science is about tough, hard words like, uh, size.
The hardest thing about this sentence is deciding which SMBC to link to illustrate it.
12: Just make sure that in evaluating the music you're not influenced by the fact that the cardinal is wearing a fancy costume.
Hardness/softness is empirically testable. The Mohr scale for minerals (talc = 1, diamond = 10) is a well known measurement system. If it had said the hardness of minerals instead of flowers that would have been completely correct. I don't know that there's a corresponding hardness scale for other things besides minerals, although I'm sure you could devise something involving pressure required to penetrate the flower (laydeez.)
They fuck you up, your mum and dad*.
*To the extent that they serve as a proxy for the entire adult world.
The Mohr scale for minerals (talc = 1, diamond = 10) is a well known measurement system
IIRC from my years-ago reading of Wandering Significance, there are multiple different incompatible tests for hardness, relevant for different kinds of concerns.
Not that you couldn't apply them to flower petals.
Too many heads on bodies among the people who devise the standardized tests.
I once etched my name into a diamond with talcum powder, but now I can't find the diamond to prove it.
I believe this is why they invented law school.
In order to enlarge genitalia to absurd proportions?
No, a lot of people who go to law school are already enormous dicks.
Some such reasoning process is why (in part at least) I went into math.
What'd the rest of you go into, Shearer?
To the post, I address my applause.
To these fucking tests I say: "Jesus fucking Christ. For fuck's sake."
I went in to math, once.
Wait, maybe that was someone else.
The document indicates that 4 is the correct answer, but answers 1 and 3 are also scientifically testable.
HA! I was right!
You're an animal, Ben. A savage brute, a beast who snorts and paws the ground in front of the paddock gate to be let out into the green fields beyond. But you will never be let out.