In a message dated 3/9/2004 3:31:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't keep us in suspense. How about giving us some of the items on the Test-Wiseness Scale to illustrate what it's about? And perhaps you could throw in some (or all) of those hints for test-taking. I'm curi
Quoting Stephen Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Given the generous final comment, it's probably churlish to quibble.
I agree ;-)
> But I'm puzzled by Annette's first comment. By "well-written",
> perhaps she means in correct English. What I meant by calling it
> "poorly-written" was that it pr
On 10 Mar 2004, Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > It's actually a test of how to exploit
> > poorly-written tests when the testee doesn't have a clue.
>
> Actually, I think this only works with well-written tests! For example
> the answer the
Stephen Black wrote:
> This has been a surprisingly active thread but before it recedes to
> that great archive in cyberspace, I'd like to add one thought I
> haven't yet seen expressed.
One topic that hasn't come up is where someone has located a place where a
shift in teaching tactics made a si
Quoting Stephen Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It's actually a test of how to exploit
> poorly-written tests when the testee doesn't have a clue. \
Actually, I think this only works with well-written tests! For example the
answer there the stem ends in 'an' and only one option begins with a vo
On 9 Mar 2004, Rick Froman wrote:
> I have used the following quiz of testwiseness to illustrate common
> pitfalls in test writing to my Psych Testing students and colleagues.
> I don't remember where I got it but I would be happy to give a proper
> attribution if anyone knows.
>
> Testwise Exam
Subject: Re: "poor
test-takers?"
OK, I think I got them
all (although I'm still thinking about number 8). Do we get an answer
key?
While this doesn't hit all the test-wise skills, it certainly is a clever way
to introduce the topic--and might even have a place in whatev
Monica Vogler wrote:
Now for the incredibly abbreviated list of 8 common flaws in questions:
[...]
7. The incorrect options include key words that tend to appear in
false statements like "every,"total," and "all."
[...]
That is why I include absolutes on some questions to fool those who
I think I got 2/3 on this one... Maybe 3 actally. I'll have to wait and
see...
One can find the answers and explanation to the 10 question test at
http://www.stargazing.net/drsmith/test-taking-A.txt
Quite interesting. But I doubt a good test would be so easy to answer...
Cheers!
JM
Moni
Hey Monica:Don't keep us in suspense. How about giving us some
of the items on the Test-Wiseness Scale to illustrate what it's about? And
perhaps you could throw in some (or all) of those hints for test-taking. I'm
curious about those too. The book isn't in our library (but perhaps it
should
OK, I went the student route and put "cluss in furmpaling" into google
and got all sorts of hits on test wiseness. Might be fertile ground for
whatever study happens (which I am willing to participate in too so long
as it incude metacognition).
Marte Fallshore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/9/2004 2:23:
Geez, that was the 'easy' one!
Annette
Quoting David Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, I think I got them all (although I'm still thinking about number
> 8). Do we get an answer key?
> While this doesn't hit all the test-wise skills, it certainly is a
> clever way to introduce the topic--an
roman
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 4:23
PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological
Sciences
Subject: RE: "poor
test-takers?"
I have used the following quiz of testwiseness to illustrate common
pitfalls in test writing to my Psych Testing students and colleagues. I
don
OK, I think I got them all (although I'm still thinking about number
8). Do we get an answer key?
While this doesn't hit all the test-wise skills, it certainly is a
clever way to introduce the topic--and might even have a place in
whatever design this group comes up with.
--Dave
Rick Froman
I have
used the following quiz of testwiseness to illustrate common pitfalls in test
writing to my Psych Testing students and colleagues. I don’t remember where I
got it but I would be happy to give a proper attribution if anyone knows.
Testwise Exam
The following is a hypothetical
On 9 Mar 2004, Monica Vogler wrote:
> >
> I've mentioned this little book in a previous post, and it seems it
> might be useful to do so again. "The Psychologist's Book of
> Self-Tests" by Louis Janda [Perigree: 1996] contains the "Test
> Wiseness Test" that some of you mentioned.
> Janda go
Hi all:
More on the "These tests just aren't fair. I do well in all my other
classes and I know I could do well in law school or grad school or grad school
or ... , if I only had a chance. I'm just not good at taking tests."
phenomenon [epidemic?].
I've mentioned this little book in a p
riginal Message-
From: Mark A. Casteel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:26 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: RE: "poor test-takers?" and metacognition
Hi. Two thoughts on this topic of poor test-takers. First, I agree with
Stephen that
Hi. Two thoughts on this topic of poor test-takers. First, I agree with
Stephen that many of the students with poor testing skills really don't
understand when they don't understand. Just on Friday, I was catching up on
my reading (almost a year behind) and read the review article by Dunning,
J
Another thought to share: As it's been noted prviously,many students refer
to themselves as "poor test takers" as if it were a personality trait. When they
make this kind of global attribution about themselves, it appears to be "out of
their control." One of the many things I dislike about th
This has been a surprisingly active thread but before it recedes to
that great archive in cyberspace, I'd like to add one thought I
haven't yet seen expressed.
The claim of students that the problem is with the test, not the
testee, or, as in Beth Benoit's version, that the student claims to
j
A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 10:04 AM
> Subject: Re: "poor test-takers?"
>
> > What you are describing is a byproduct of the anti-testing movement, I
&g
Carol
-Original Message-
From: Peterson, Douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 3/8/2004 11:33 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Cc:
Subject: RE: "poor test-takers?"
I was searching PsycInfo and came across this reference and abstract and
thought it migh
I was searching PsycInfo and came across this reference and abstract and
thought it might be helpful to the test-taking folks. I'm interested in the
research angle and started a couple a replies but then changed my mind about
getting involved in this (I'm finally learning to focus - h is that
Everyone will love this - not only is it anecdotal, but in the immortal phrase it
involves a friend of a friend and I don't remember all of the crucial details.
Having said that: a friend of a friend was always one of the brightest and best in
her class and (here we deviate from not testing wel
t;To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: "poor test-takers?"
>
>Each institution would have to approve of it. Of that I am quite certain. I
>can't see why that should create anxiety among usit's a simple enough
>ex
Thanks for the feedback.
I think there's a difference between 55 items and 13 but who knows?
If you like the book, please consider posting some comments at
Amazon.
Are you going to Phoenix?
NJM
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> In a message dated 3/7/2004 1:39:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> I think that IQ is an obvious covariate to include. Doesn't the 16PF
> contain an intelligence scale that is only 13 or 15 items long?
>
>
> How good would this be
In a message dated 3/7/2004 1:39:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
think that IQ is an obvious covariate to include. Doesn't the 16PF contain
an intelligence scale that is only 13 or 15 items
long?
How good would this be in quality? I am concerned about it.
Nan
At 02:12 PM 3/7/2004 -0600, John Nichols wrote:
Miguel, is the measure of
test-wiseness you mentioned free and simple
enough for us to use? Maybe a better first question would be, does
your
Psych Lit search reveal that the question is sufficiently answered?
Anything available on the Web -- with
Chris Green couldn't get this to post so I'm trying to get this through:
Shearon, Tim wrote:
> I believe that the current thought is that it is teachable- anyone
> familiar with that research? Tim Shearon
My point was not so much that people cannot be taught to be better test-takers, but
rather
calgary.ca/CourseNotes/mcadvice.html
Cheers,
Martha
- Original Message -
From: "John W. Nichols, M.A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: "poor
Each institution would have to approve of it. Of that I am quite certain. I
can't see why that should create anxiety among usit's a simple enough
expedited review type of study.
Annette
Quoting "John W. Nichols, M.A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> An ugly thought:
> Does this sound like something
Cc:
Subject: Re: "poor test-takers?"
John W. Nichols, M.A. wrote:
> Miguel, is the measure of test-wiseness you mentioned free and simple
> enough for us to use?
I don't know the details of &q
John W. Nichols, M.A. wrote:
I don't know if Dave's argument for including a measure of general
intelligence would be manageable in this situation. Any thoughts?
I think that IQ is an obvious covariate to include. Doesn't the 16PF
contain an intelligence scale that is only 13 or 15 items long?
R
John W. Nichols, M.A. wrote:
Miguel, is the measure of test-wiseness you mentioned free and simple
enough for us to use?
I don't know the details of "test-wiseness," but it sounds like
something that could be taught (having to do with familiarity with
tests) rather than the kind of putative "pe
l Sciences
Cc:
Subject: Re: "poor test-takers?"
An ugly thought:
Does this sound like something that would require the approval of an
IRB?
If so, anyone know of a friendly IRB?
"John W. Nichols, M.A." wrote:
>
> "Oh, please God, grant me the wisdom to
An ugly thought:
Does this sound like something that would require the approval of an
IRB?
If so, anyone know of a friendly IRB?
"John W. Nichols, M.A." wrote:
>
> "Oh, please God, grant me the wisdom to keep my mouth shut (or fingers
> off the keyboard) in the future", he mutters to self.
>
Cc:
Subject: Re: "poor test-takers?"
I'm game: John, are you organizing this?
Annette
Quoting "John W. Nichols, M.A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Great suggestion. If anyone knows of a norm
"Oh, please God, grant me the wisdom to keep my mouth shut (or fingers
off the keyboard) in the future", he mutters to self.
I am interested enough in the topic that I could organize it. If
someone can locate or create a questionnaire that we can all use, that
would be a good start.
Miguel, is
I'm game: John, are you organizing this?
Annette
Quoting "John W. Nichols, M.A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Great suggestion. If anyone knows of a normed questionnaire, or
> develops one, please share. Perhaps several/many Tipsters would like to
> collect the data, pool it/them, and create a "pape
Miguel Roig wrote:
my
bet would be that those who score low on test wiseness tend
to also have poorer study skills and/or to simply not be very motivated
to learn the material.
Years ago, I administered a questionnaire
on study habits to a large class of intro psyc students. It
At 12:04 PM 3/7/2004 -0600, John Nichols wrote:
Test taking, however, does involve
a number of skills that might be
considered at least partially independent of study skills. There
are
also test-taking attitudes that are involved.
A relatively old construct known as test-wiseness probably fits
Title: Re: "poor test-takers?"
Totally agreed. Our family mantra, when dealing with some less-than-stellar example of his/her profession (doctor, lawyer, whatever...) is:
"Hey, somebody had to come in last."
Beth Benoit
University System of New Hampshire
on 3
If someone was really serious about measuring some of the correlates of
self-reported "test-taking ability," I would certainly argue for
including a measure of general intelligence. (A brief measure such as
the Wonderlic or Otis Quick-Scoring might be adequate.) In this age
when everyone is "
Great suggestion. If anyone knows of a normed questionnaire, or
develops one, please share. Perhaps several/many Tipsters would like to
collect the data, pool it/them, and create a "paper" we can all use
similar to the study time survey we did a few years ago.
"Christopher D. Green" wrote:
>
What you are describing is a byproduct of the anti-testing movement, I
think.
I agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part. For the most
part, the agreement and disagreement involve different parts.
I agree that, for the most part it is students who are poor students
(poor study ski
I don't have any answers, but I do have a couple of questions:
If this inability to "test well" is a personality trait then shouldn't we
see it in all of the student's courses instead of just a few?
If this inability to do well on tests is universal then how did these
students ever make it throug
Beth Benoit wrote:
I'm more inclined to believe that having failed to learn good study skills
seems a more likely description to me than that the hapless student is
saddled with some cognitive defect.
Send me something. (Just kidding.)
What a fine empirical question to be tested. It would, of cour
49 matches
Mail list logo
