| Author | Post |
|---|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
Eleventh-grade students and teachers are spending extraordinary amounts of class time preparing for ACT, but the intense focus on test strategies and item practice is hurting, not helping, performance on this high-skills accountability exam, according to a study released Tuesday by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.
http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=1385
|
kdmom
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 118 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 04:27 pm |
|
A test you can't cram for? Interesting...
Way back in the day, when I took the SAT, we were told that you couldn't study for it because it was an "aptitude" test. Supposedly it was a measure of your natural ability, not your knowledge or your test-taking skills. Though I'm very glad that I didn't have to spend any time in boring prep classes, I don't think that's the accepted wisdom these days.
I noticed this quote from the article:
The ACT is designed to measure college readiness more than learning in particular high school courses. While it incorporates skills taught in high school classes, it is more of a test of thinking and problem-solving skills than a test of specific content knowledge.
La plus ca change...?
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
Waaaay back in the day when I took the SAT, I didn't even know that you could prep for it. The first time I saw the test or knew what it contained was when I opened the test booklet on test day. I figured it was something like one of those periodic IQ tests or "Iowa Tests" that we would walk into. As it happens I didn't do nearly as well on SAT as I did on a typicai IQ test (and despite being 5th in my graduating class).
For reasons that escape me I did far better on LSAT and GRE's in my senior year in college, but again without knowing a thing about those exams before sitting down to take them -- and despite having not a single multiple-choice test during my 4 years of college.
Last edited on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 01:06 pm by mackinaw
|
kdmom
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 118 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 05:36 pm |
|
That was my experience exactly, mackinaw -- didn't have a clue what was on the test until test day. However, I did take the test twice, and the second time my scores were higher. I think the "practice" I got on the first test was responsible for that -- so much for "aptitude". I wonder what the competition was doing back then. I'm sure no-one in my high school studied for the test, but maybe private school students did.
I noticed that the article above talks mostly about using class time to prepare. The data showed that taking time away from academic subjects for test prep doesn't seem to help scores. However, the study mentions that some of the students who didn't use class time did take test prep classes on Saturday. I didn't see any comparison in the article, but maybe the students who had both a full academic curriculum and outside prep classes did best of all. In other words, I still don't quite believe that directed preparation doesn't help on the ACT.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 06:17 pm |
|
Yeah, I retook the SAT too. Didn't study the next time either but improved 200 points. I do agree that testing experience does matter for many, perhaps most, students. But when that experience takes place over a longer period of time (months or a year), any apparent testing experience effect is hard to distinguish from real learning that may take place during that interval. And even experience and real learning may not matter if other odd factors come into play on test day (including luck!).
With my two kids, the first one was familiar with the SAT from taking it in middle school talent search in 6th and 8th grades, but did so well when he took it for real in 11th grade that he didn't repeat it (unless you count PSAT and SAT as a repeat). My second one repeated the test because she thought she could do better and her composite score was 10 points different from the first taking. So much for experience! (When she was about to take the GMAT last year because she was applying to business school, she took a prep course because some of her skills were rusty after being out of school for 4 years and because a majority of other applicants would also be taking such prep courses. She's convinced that it really helped her.)
Last edited on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 09:37 pm by mackinaw
|
WestrnMom
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 1197 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
The original purpose of the SAT was to test the natural ability of a student as a prediction of who would do well in college. It wasn't intended to be an exam one could study or prep for. The test prep classes have only diluted the intent of the exam, so I'm glad to see that ACT prep doesn't affect outcomes. My son took the ACT without prep and did very well on it. He took test prep for the SAT and didn't score as well in comparison.
|
Current time is 06:38 pm | |
|
