Talk:Standardized test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archive of removed, unreferenced content

Contents 1 Comments 2 Recent changes 3 Edits by User:Sugarcaddy 4 No Culture-Free Tests for Intelligence 5 Unreferenced material 6 Possible new source

[edit] Comments

Shouldn't there be links to articles about specific standardized tests? 24.250.246.178rhesusman 13:06 UTC 16 April 2005

---

Heck, this should be merged with the article Standardized testing. I'm going to flag it if no one objects.

Rhesusmanrhesusman 17:25 UTC 17 April 2005

I disagree they need to be merged. The question is which name should the resulting article have? The naming conventions don't seem to give any preference of a gerund form over a noun or vice versa. The subject "Test" should technically be about the test itself and "Testing" is technically about the application and use of the test, but I suppose either article could cover all the material to avoid overlap. Other factors include that this article has a much longer edit history, possibly meaning it is the more favored name, but also possibly it is just a better connected article. Anyone have good experience from other articles to guide this decision? I'm willing to do the merge if we agree on which way to do it. - Taxman 13:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The cleanup task force is going to work on the other one, but I think this one needs cleanup more. I wouldn't have a problem with the two articles being fixed so they do indeed talk about separate things, such as one talking about the tests themselves and the other talking about such testing as a public policy. I myself don't care which outcome is chosen, so long as we don't have duplicate articles.

Rhesusman 17:30 UTC 17 April 2005

[edit] Recent changes

See Talk:Standardized testing#Vagueness and lack of references for more info. Moved page to align with other pages on tests; for example, norm-referenced test and criterion-referenced test. Chris53516 16:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:Sugarcaddy

I reverted the edits by this user not because it was necessarily bad, but because a lot of it was not in the style of an encyclopedia. Some of it was written like a newspaper article without citing its sources. Here are some of the sections:

This was placed right at the top, but it is not very relevant to the main content of this article. It sounds like it should be for a high-stakes testing article. This section is written like a newspaper article without citing its sources, especially the comments with the statements "outlawed" (by who?) and the second paragraph.

see main article High stakes testing

When such as test is used for an important consequence, such as grade promotion or awarding a high school diploma, it is called a high stakes test. Although IQ tests have been largely outlawed as unfairly penalizing minorities for use in educational decisions, some have started to question the ethics of using standards based tests which show similarly large or larger gaps between groups with differing education and income, despite design features to combat cultural bias (see below).

It is thought by education officials such as Terry Bergeson, the Superintendent of Public Instruction of Washington State, that attaching consequences will serve as an incentive so that all students will be expected to succeed, not just an artificial few at the top of a constructed bell curve. Students will not merely be passed onto the next grade for seat time, they will be expected to demonstrate student learning. Others such as Alfie Kohn question the fairness of penalizing populations who lack the advantages of parental education and income for merely scoring lower than the most advantaged ethnic groups. Education professor Don Orlich of Washington University has questioned the utility of released fourth grade mathematics questions that puzzle even college graduates.

Also, standardized tests are not all hand-scored. If you're going to add references, make sure the links work and that you actually provide an external reference. This article is also NOT about education reform, it's about testing.

Chris53516 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Culture-Free Tests for Intelligence

The article claims that no culture free intelligence tests exist. The Raven's Progressive Matrices are tests that are clearly culture free, and have been validated by testing in many different countries. I am going to change that point unless anyone has any objections. AmitDeshwar 03:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I object. Do you have evidence that it is culture free? It is very difficult to create a culture-free test. Language itself is cultural, and that is difficult to change to be culture free. I would only allow such a change if there was evicence to support your claim, and NOT the opinion of an organization or company. Chris53516 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The progressive matrices are completely non-verbal, so the "cultural language" charge is completely out of place. They're 3x3 grids with simple drawings (circles, shapes, lines, etc.) in them, and your task is to select the ninth picture according to whatever you think fits best. I'm in favor of including them. WhatamIdoing 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced material

I removed unreferenced content. You can find it here. -- Chris53516 13:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But you're also removing content which is not incorrect. Easier to find here, add it back when you have references. If something is essentially correct, it's only neccesary to remove it if someone who believes it is incorrect challenges it. there is no point in challenging something just because there isn't a footnote for every sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarcaddy (talk • contribs)

This is NOT the place for article content. Do NOT re-add it. There does need to be a footnote for every new statement. The content of the paragraph I removed doesn't make any sense. First you wrote about how much someone can be paid to score a test, which I think is irrelevant to the topic, then you jump to how the tests are viewed by some group without citing any source for that claim. And all of this is under "Design." How does that make any sense? Chris53516 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the following content is correct, but I don't have the time right now to put a citation on every sentence, or spend the effort or risk to counter challenge it. Does anybody have any contradicting information that would indicate that any of this is incorrect? An article that has a reference for every sentence looks very poor. Much of this such as No. 2 pencil should be of no challenge to anybody, so it should be edited, not reverted. --Sugarcaddy

This is NOT the place for disputed content. The history pages will show it. Furthermore, AS I SAID BEFORE, you do NOT need to cite something for every sentence. YOU DO NEED TO CITE SOMETHING FOR EVERY CLAIM. If you don't have time to add the content properly, then DON'T ADD IT AT ALL. Also, no one needs to provide counter-factual information. This is an encyclopedia, and in order for you to add content, you MUST have a source/citation. The defense of the content is on YOUR part, not on others. The part about a No. 2 pencil is ridiculous anyway--how is that relevant?? Chris53516 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Without specifically defending Sugarcaddy's edits, I'd just like to point out that if WP actually followed the policy Chris53516 is claiming, we'd have to completely blank a lot of pages, and remove a majority of the content. Indeed, the content that Chris insists on replacing Sugarcaddy's edits with is even less cited than Sugarcaddy's. Sure, I wish WP were more fully cited. But just blanking uncited content is not the answer. See Template:Fact/doc for a hierarchical list of procedures for handling uncited claims. /blahedo (t) 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of this was speculative and speciously related. Quite frankly, I could care less if the rest of Wikipedia is uncited. I will defend those topics that are important to me by thwarting ridiculous edits. Chris53516 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How is quoting from an investigative report by the Seattle Times unreferenced or speculative? --Sugarcaddy 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of this. Who the hell cares how much test scorers are paid? Does the page on software development have the wages of software developers? Probably not! And why on Earth should it? It's IRRELEVANT. Chris53516 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new source

I thought that the information at this website might be useful for expanding this article. It seems to be pretty boringly straightforward, instead of agenda-oriented. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)