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
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 there the stem
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 provided a
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
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 th
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
-
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 many of the students with poor
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. snip
Janda goes on
I have
used the following quiz of testwiseness to illustrate common pitfalls in test
writing to my Psych Testing students and colleagues. I dont 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
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
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't remember where I got it b
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 2:23:18
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
1.
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
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
expedited review type of study.
Annette
Quoting John W. Nichols, M.A. [EMAIL PROTECTED
of
challenge, for example) would routinely do poorly on a test because they
have some anomaly - genetic or otherwise - that makes them unable to
demonstrate their brilliance on a test.
I'm not referring to people with anxiety disorders or phobias or learning
disorders. The poor test-takers in my
OK, I got a few. The following references are of abstracts that mention the use of
test-wiseness measures:
Feruito, M. Fabiola, R. (1998). Explaining passage independence: An analysis of the
ability to respond to reading comprehension test items when the passages are omitted.
Dissertation
Subject: poor test-takers?
OK, I got a few. The following references are of abstracts that mention the
use of test-wiseness measures:
Feruito, M. Fabiola, R. (1998). Explaining passage independence: An
analysis of the ability to respond to reading comprehension test items when
the passages
-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 might be helpful
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
think.
I agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part. For the most
part, the agreement and disagreement involve different parts
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
- that makes them unable to
demonstrate their brilliance on a test.
I'm not referring to people with anxiety disorders or phobias or learning
disorders. The poor test-takers in my experience are students who just
whip that phrase out as though it's a personality characteristic, and I'm
tired
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
) would routinely do poorly on a
test because they have some anomaly - genetic or otherwise - that makes
them unable to demonstrate their brilliance on a test.
I'm not referring to people with anxiety disorders or phobias or
learning disorders. The poor test-takers in my experience are
students
.
I'm not referring to people with anxiety disorders or phobias or learning
disorders. The poor test-takers in my experience are students who just
whip that phrase out as though it's a personality characteristic, and I'm
tired of it. They often announce this even before the first test
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:
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
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 3/7/04 1:41 PM, David Campbell
in my group who claimed to have taken
promotional and certification tests across a variety of disciplines and
have passed many of those tests, in part by applying his 'test-wiseness'
skills.
With respect to those students who claim to be poor test-takers (and I
too don't particularly care for that type
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 asked
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 paper we
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
:
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 normed questionnaire, or
develops one
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.
I am
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 keep my mouth shut (or fingers
off the keyboard
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
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?
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 test-wiseness, but it sounds
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 that
/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 test-takers?
What you are describing is a byproduct of the anti
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
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 --
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.
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
