Talk:Standardized test
 | Psychology B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Education B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | The contents of the Standardized testing and its effects page were merged into Standardized test. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Standardized testing and public policy page were merged into Standardized test. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Archive of removed, unreferenced content
POV
The effects section and possibly the advantages section is very biased, discuss. J4xh4x123 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Old 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
"Value-added modeling has been proposed to cope with this criticism by statistically controlling for innate ability and out-of-school contextual factors." I believe "innate ability" should be replaced by something like "previous educational achievement". The value-added models I have seen often use a student's previous year test score or grade in the same subject area to set a baseline. But, the phrase as now worded suggests that IQ or ability test scores are used, and that is simply not feasible (nor, probably, fair). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverDesPeres (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment
The statement that "standardized tests are considered more fair" than other forms of testing needs a reference. However, I think this is a biased view, as standardized tests can give a decidedly unfair indication of a someone's knowledge and ability in some circumstances. For example, in some cultures (e.g., Australian Aboriginal), adults do not ask children questions to test their knowledge in the same way that many Western cultures do. As another example, a child who is non-compliant due to poor attention will probably score more poorly on something like the WISC, due to their attention, rather than their intelligence. 14:16, 18 June, Anonymous.
- I believe it is generally accepted that they are more fair than the alternative, which is to give a test under good conditions to one group of students and under poor conditions to another group of students. You wouldn't, for example, consider it very fair if the wealthy students got extra time, could ask questions about the directions, and had a quiet, comfortable room for taking the test, and poor students were rushed, yelled at when they were confused, and were crowded in a sweaty, dark room for the test, would you? Eliminating that kind of difference is the point behind "standardizing". There's no need to "test in a Western style" to give everyone the same test under the same circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to mention why I made a couple of my edits so I could possibly get some feedback. The first edit I made was in the United States history section of this Wikipedia article. I stated how immigration contributed to the growth of standardized tests and then later added on how immigrants used standardized tests and I just felt like adding in one of the reasons the United States first started using standardized tests was a point that needed to be added into this article. I also wanted to say that living in the United States and seeing that its history section on this article needed some improvements is why I decided to edit it.
- I also added in that the man who started one of the most popular standardized tests, The ACT, was from the United States and I feel like that is a big part of the history of standardized tests in the U.S so that I why I made those edits in those sections.Disneygirl10 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Another thing I would like to mention is my reasoning behind my edit underneath the Effects section of this article. I put in there that big standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT, didn't test other talented domains such as art, athletics, etc. I feel like this is an important point to make as to why the standardized tests aren't as effective or why there is a fault in the way they are used. Many people are talented in areas that are not testable in a standardized test, so that is why I added that to this section of the article.Disneygirl10 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also wanted to point out that I added two hyperlinks onto other Wikipedia articles, on the ACT and on Everett Lindquist the man who formed the ACT. Just so people can get more information on what the ACT is and who started it.Disneygirl10 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing your recent edits here on the article talk page. I'm glad an editor is devoting some attention to this article. As a friendly suggestion to you and to anyone else looking on, I'll mention that I keep an Intelligence Citations bibliography in user space so that all of us can identify reliable sources for updating articles like this one and related articles. Thank you for joining in on improving Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- want to add more information regarding public policy and legislations put in place and standards regarding legislations in the U.S. Therefore, I feel it would be helpful to note specific legislations affecting school systems and related standards. I added this to the public policy section.
"The legislation passed by Congress in 2001, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was intended to bolster students’ performance and provide financial security for schools who successfully reach the standards set in place by the state before the federal deadline is met. The goal of federally mandated funding is to help ensure that the youth of our country are learning accountability and to adequately measure student progress and teachers success (or to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)). However, the legislation remains to have critics because it can commonly provide insufficient funding for struggling public school districts to reach and maintain the standards set in place by AYP. The standards set for schools in Stephens County, Georgia is like most Title I school systems in the U.S., Stephens County follow increasing test standards, if a Title I school misses AYP for two straight years, it is labeled "in need of improvement," and students may transfer to a higher-performing school within the district. Three straight falling years and a school must offer free tutoring and other supplemental services to struggling students. Four straight and the school needs "corrective action," which could mean massive staff turnover, increased class times and new curriculum. Five straight years means total restructuring of the school and six straight means the restricting plan is implemented and can result in school closure(Anne Campbell. “The Atlanta Scandal: Standardized Testing and the Curruption of US Education.”)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobbin9 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Rating
Operational details about Rating need to be added. Supervised at school level or state level, how exam sheets are moved and controled, managing the operation, physical control of the scorers time-limited activity, control of student identity, etc. The same apply to country articles.--Connection (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Every test is going to be different. What you do for a written driving test in the US (which is a standardized test) is totally different from what you to for the Graduate Record Exam in the US (which is also a standardized test). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Standardized tests in the mid-19th century is surely an anachronism
I believe the editor who made the recent edit about immigration in the mid-1800s (mid-19th century) was referring to a source, so the edit was made in good faith, but it is surely factually incorrect that there were standardized tests used for immigration purposes or most any other purpose that early. (I follow the history of this topic closely.) Let's check for a better source. I have a source list on psychological testing in my user space that points to better sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)