On 20 May Ken Steele wrote [snip]: > > Here is the teaser summary from the Observer: > > > > "There were some interesting twists and turns on the road to the > > new SAT, and APS Fellow Richard C. Atkinson, President Emeritus of > > the University of California, was in the driver's seat. Atkinson > > offers a detailed account of his leading role in changing the face > > of college admissions testing." > > [...]
> > His distinction between aptitude and achievement tests was odd also. > > > > "For example, an algebra test given at then end of a course would > > be classified as an achievement test, whereas a test given prior to > > the course--designed to predict the student's performance in the > > algebra course--would be classified as an aptitude test. In actual > > practice, the distinction between achievement and aptitude tests is > > not as neat as these definitions might suggest but the conceptual > > difference is useful." On 20 May Bob Wildwood wrote [snip] > In regard to the differences between aptitude and achievement tests, > I think that has been one of the most misused concepts in testing. > If you give a test before the student has been exposed to a > particular idea or concept or subject and then give them another > "different" test at the end of the period of learning, you are > essentially giving them the same test (some would argue that the best > you can call them are parallel forms of the same test) pre- and > post. But, the test publishers have the educators convinced that > there are two different tests that measure two different things. > Bah! Humbug! It seems to me that a test given prior to students starting a course would best be considered a diagnostic test. I taught maths to students commencing an A level GCE course (pre-University) some years ago. After major changes in the lower level exam (taken at age 16) that led to a situation in which we could no longer rely on students with grade C (minimum for entry to A level) having a reasonable knowledge of basic concepts and procedures, I started each academic year with a test designed to inform me of the current level of knowledge of the students in the class. I really cannot see how a test at the start of a maths course (even if "designed to predict the student's performance in the course" [Atkinson]) can measure aptitude at the subject. If students have not come across specific knowledge or procedures before, then failure to answer questions correctly on these is not an indication of lack of aptitude. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------- >Fri, 20 May 2005 14:24:52 -0500 >Author: "Dr. Bob Wildblood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: definition of "standardized test" > As someone who has worked with testing and measurement as part of my > graduate training, was involved with the revision of the WISC in the > early 70's and who has used tests for more than 30 years in schools, > and in private practice, here's my Euro 0.02 worth (about 0.0213 > right now, I guess.) First as to standardization. There are two > parts to standardization. The first is what we psychologists do when > we concern ourselves with appropriate reference groups and with > matters such as reliability and validity. The second is what > Atkinson was talking about and that is that each test that is > administered should be administered in "exactly the same way" so that > anyone taking the test would receive essentially the same test > stimuli to which to respond. This is particularly important in the > administration of individually administered tests. That's why when > you give the person being tested the picture arrangement or the > puzzles that are put together, the pieces must all be put on the > table in exactly the same position for everyone being tested every > time. That's the way the test was standardized (the comparison group > and that is the way each new person being tested has to be dealt with > so that they are receiving the "same test." > > In regard to the differences between aptitude and achievement tests, > I think that has been one of the most misused concepts in testing. > If you give a test before the student has been exposed to a > particular idea or concept or subject and then give them another > "different" test at the end of the period of learning, you are > essentially giving them the same test (some would argue that the best > you can call them are parallel forms of the same test) pre- and > post. But, the test publishers have the educators convinced that > there are two different tests that measure two different things. > Bah! Humbug! > > > Dr. Bob Wildlbood > Lecturer in Psychology > Indiana University Kokomo > Kokomo, IN 56904-9003 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On 20 May, 2005, at 13:49, Ken Steele wrote: > > > > > Here is the teaser summary from the Observer: > > > > "There were some interesting twists and turns on the road to the > > new SAT, and APS Fellow Richard C. Atkinson, President Emeritus of > > the University of California, was in the driver's seat. Atkinson > > offers a detailed account of his leading role in changing the face > > of college admissions testing." > > > > The article is adapted from an invited address at the annual > > meeting of the American Educational Research Association in April, > > 2004. That definition, and the definition of an aptitude vs. an > > achievement test opens the talk. I would think that this group > > would be able to handle a technical definition. > > > > His distinction between aptitude and achievement tests was odd also. > > > > "For example, an algebra test given at then end of a course would > > be classified as an achievement test, whereas a test given prior to > > the course--designed to predict the student's performance in the > > algebra course--would be classified as an aptitude test. In actual > > practice, the distinction between achievement and aptitude tests is > > not as neat as these definitions might suggest but the conceptual > > difference is useful." > > > > It is an odd article and I hesitate to summarize it. I think it > > would be fair to say that Atkinson's goal was to change the SAT > > from at aptitude test to an achievement test. > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
