Talk:Standardized test/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Recent changes

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Edits by User:Sugarcaddy

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Unreferenced material

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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)

No Culture-Free Tests for Intelligence

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

I object too. Raven's Progressive Matrices are an attempt to minimise cultural bias in testing, but the tests must still take place within a cultural context and respond to certain proficiencies in the subject which are heavily influenced by culture. Worth a mention in the article, but without the unsupportable claim that they are 'culture free'.

Possible new source

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

a question

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was wondering why no one has likned the tests to how the education system is ran. There has been reference to the fact the tests may not be the best judge of performance however, I believe there is a bigger issue at hand. I have heard countless stories/ seen many children not know basic information they should have learned in school. I feel this is due to the fact teachers are gearing their lesson plans toward passing test as opposed to actually teaching information. I am not saying all teachers do this, I am just stating the ones who do are adding to the problem. Teachers are encouraged to teach strategies to pass tests and I believe a good portion of students are recieveing a great injuctice from this style of teaching.--Lilmisssponge (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not a problem with the test, but with the syllabus (or rather, misunderstanding of it by teachers). If this "basic information" is so important, why is it not on the test, especially when the test is designed by educators? And a deeper problem is that 99% of teachers don't know the first thing about testing. You're right, these are important issues, but the reason they should not be discussed in this article is because it is a general treatment of standardized testing, of which American K-12 testing is but a tiny fraction. It's already biased towards that fraction.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This misunderstanding has apparently resulted in some classes doing poorly on these tests. The teacher thinks, "Oh, it will all be simple arithmetic, so I won't bother teaching anything else" -- and then the test turns out to require complex applications of mathematics skills, to the teacher's astonishment and the students' frustration.

Test-taking strategies boost some students' confidence and slightly increase the speed that some students' work at, but there are no test-taking strategies that will allow a student who can't read or do basic arithmetic to figure out the answer to a three-step story problem. They have their place, but their place is necessarily small -- and I suspect that if you looked at the amount of time dedicated to teaching test-taking strategies to students over the course of an entire year, you'd find that it received less than 1% of the time (which is to say: less than half the time middle-class elementary school students in America spend eating cupcakes and other junk food for birthday/holiday celebrations during what are supposed to be instructional hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Right/Wrong Answers

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A funny thought I had on the example of the sugar cube. I read this whole thing sequentially: i.e. Put a cube of sugar in, then cut it in half (inside the cup). I may have answered it correctly (more surface area would mean more could dissolve in less time), but I took longer to consider it, due to having to puzzle over what the sequence was and whether that was important in the process. That could be critical to a timed test. MarchHare (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that they were trying to eliminate the problem that is obvious to anyone who has actually cut a sugar cube: The sugar crumbles. They didn't want "There is less sugar in the cup (because most of it is still on the counter top)" to be a plausible answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a UScentric article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a teacher in New Zealand, I will point out that this article, while informative on standardised testing, only takes into account the perspective of the US/does not identify where various practices are based. For example, standardised tesing in NZ is predominatly marked by PEOPLE not by machines. This needs to be corrected thanks --203.97.52.166 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You have the ability to edit the article to improve it. Don't just complain about it do something about it. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Merger

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

There is some overlap between this article and Test. I wonder if there would be greater benefits if both articles were merged as a single piece. Any thoughts? mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

An article with this title ought to be much broader in scope, including tests that aren't given to students in school. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That may not be a bad idea. Perhaps we should put a banner soon to suggest a merger. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am correctly understanding your latest comment. What would you like to see happen to this article, and to any other article you have in mind? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a merger of this article with the test (assessment) article. There is considerable overlap between the two articles with respect to standardized testing, test construction, and education. Moreover, as you rightly pointed out, standardized tests are also used for purposes other than education. As it stands, there are currently two articles on the same subject. One describes at length on the history and current practice (mainly U.S.) of using standardized testing in education while the other discusses tests in general, which also includes standardized testing in education and its history. I am not sure if this is the best wiki form given. I am also not opposed to keeping them separate. I just think it is quite redundant keeping them separate. Plus there is another article called "educational assessment," which also covers similar issues. But unlike these two articles, it is not clear what the education article is trying to accomplish or convey. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am observer of (not a party to, I'm glad to say) a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee case just now, so I'm unusually busy. Please remind me in a while, on my user talk page, to check what other articles are already on Wikipedia about related subjects, so that we can discuss how to divide content among those articles. I will continue watching this page, and invite other editors to comment on your thoughtful suggestion while I am busy, so that we make a good decision together. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Weiji, sounds like a plan. I will post a note on your discussion page within 5 days (August 25). No rush. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's such a good idea. There's so much to be said specifically about standardized testing that it might overwhelm the non-standardized or everyday notions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging in sub-articles

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We have a pair of sub-articles that are unfortunately US-focused and possibly WP:POVFORKs: Standardized testing and public policy and Standardized testing and its effects. I think we should merge them into this page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a standardized test is a test that is given and scored the same way? Is that all that is meant by the term?? it doesn't seem right. Is there something missing here, or is it me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.148.156 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A claim which isn't true

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"The opposite of a standardized test is a non-standardized test." This isn't true. A standardized test is an standardized assessment of students. The opposite of a standardized assessment is a non-standardized non-assessment, ie doing nothing at all to determine student learning. Davidwees (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? So when the teacher goes around the room, and orally asks each student a different question, perhaps deliberately selecting harder questions for the more advanced students, and easier ones for those who struggle, then the teacher is "doing nothing at all" to determine whether the students learned the material?

At any rate, if you want to include such a statement in the article, then you would have to provide a citation to a reliable source that supports your belief. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, you should consider both the opposite of the word "standardized" and the word "test" when considering the opposite of "standardized test." Another example would be using a rubric for assessment, or self-assessment, or oral assessment, or a million other types of "non-standardized assessments." --Davidwees (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Old comments

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

POV

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The effects section and possibly the advantages section is very biased, discuss. J4xh4x123 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Standardized test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060824050606/http://www.aft.org:80/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/StandAssessRes.pdf to http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/StandAssessRes.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Abolition Removed

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any explanation on why my statement was deleted for any reason other than copy and past? Like I said on the article of SAT, the test hold 99% of students back a year because only 1% have the capacity of passing.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

180.216.68.197 - I don't see where you've edited the article using the same IP address as you currently are - I'll assume that these edits or these edits were made by you? Your edits to this article violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and they demonstrate a clear bias, if not a personal distaste for Standardized Testing. This personal level of involvement is highly discouraged here - we aim to edit in a neutral view, even if you're just emotionally involved, you're still involved. I highly recommend reading Wikipedia's policies on these aspects. They will answer all of your questions :). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't neutral on TV TRopes, then why shouldn't it be neutral on Wikipedia? After all TV Tropes accurately documents real life as much as Wikipedia.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add something to an article, it must be backed up (cited) by reliable sources. You did not do that. It must be written neutrally. You haven't done that. And if you want to defend your edit on an article's talk page, it's a good idea to make a coherent argument in favor of your edit. You haven't done that either. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. Ratemonth (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First steps towards neutral POV

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Today, I set out to fix the "Effects" section of this article (see Special:Permalink/698829459) and decided it was more or less beyond saving. It had the tone of a persuasive essay written as a school assignment, right up to the MLA formatting, and the consensus in the talk page indicates something should be done about this article. As such, I decided to be bold and start the process of fixing it without losing any of the validly. To the end, I will be looking for the sources cited in that section and trying to incorporate any valid information contained therein while still adhering to policy, NPOV in particular. I will also try to find sources concerning the benefits and advantages of standardized testing as necessary. I hope to extend this effort through the whole article, but I'm starting small with this section. Any help from other editors would be greatly appreciated! 150.199.140.25 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: I (same editor as IP above) have made edits to the last section of the Disadvantages and Criticisms section to remove dubious or possibly speculative or opinion based content and improve the neutrality of the passage. I still need to sift through sources to determine if they are reliable and whether they support the claims made. As a product of the American educational system, I can vouch for the claims in the first and last sentences of that paragraph, but I will look for corroborating sources anyway. Not done yet! =) 131.151.77.90 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

BY aliza hill meadows

In the future, it would be helpful to re-organize the advantages/disadvantages sections to cover actual topics, such as ===Effects on school curriculum===, ===Effects on disadvantaged students===, ===Costs===, or whatever else is put forth as an advantage or disadvantage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am a student doing a semester-long assignment on standardized testing

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am interested in the topic because I have never been too aquatinted with processes that go into making standardized tests and the details of the subject as a whole; all I knew was how much I did not like taking them and how much I despised the prep for them, lol. I have been doing quite a bit of research and will be editing upon the article where I think it's needed. I am very much open to the discussions that it will bring up and am hoping to help educate people further into what they may not know yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoits875391 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Overreliance on newspaper essay

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Large portions of text were recently added to this article with most of the material citing an essay in the Wall Street Journal. It is highly inappropriate to rely on a newspaper essay for so much material in an article whose subject has been the object of study by many experts who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and publications. This is especially true since several portions of the text that have been added simply quote the WSJ essay quoting or summarizing scholarly materials; it would be much more honest and helpful for readers to cut out the middle man and cite the original material. ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted. The text will be refined to cite papers directly. Liao 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Purpose

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was a section on "Importance", which I've just removed. I first tried to re-write it to be about the purpose, and ended up with this:

There are three primary reasons for using a standardized test in an academic setting:^[1]

Comparing test takers – for example, to fairly determine which students can spell the most words
Improvement of ongoing instruction and learning – for example, to identify whether students understand all the material, or if some sections need to be reviewed
Evaluation of instruction – for example, to determine which teachers are more effective at teaching which subjects

However, I gave up. The source is obviously thinking about college entrance examinations and Value-added modeling, and none of that applies to common standardized tests such as a driver's license test. We're not comparing your ability to answer the 20 questions against someone else's, your results will not help you improve in the future, and nobody's measuring the quality of your instruction. So I'm giving up, and if someone has a decent source about the purpose that is not specific to the use of large-scale, annual, standardized tests of the sort given to most American students each spring, then please Wikipedia:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Popham, W. James (April 2016). "Standardized Tests Purpose is the Point". Educational Leadership. 73 (7): 47.

Organization

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Overall, IMO this page has two major problems:

a few editors (probably students) who think that "big" standardized tests are the only kind of standardized test worth talking about, and
a lack of organization.

I spent some time yesterday trying to untangle some of the mixed-up parts of this article by rearranging things as I can. Once all the similar bits are in the same sections, there will be a need to remove duplicate/redundant information.

I think we need to have a separate section for the annual school tests. That might help confine the very unusual content (standardized test results can force the closure of schools? Hmm, I don't think that applies to standardized tests in general) to one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: This diff is me massively re-arranging the page to talk about the subject, and not about whether the source is a "supporter" or a "critic". We need sections that talk about teaching to the test or money and predictive power and other things; we do not need sections called "Criticism".

Good: Paragraph that says the SAT predicts grades for first-year university students, but the GRE doesn't predict grad student grades.

Bad: Section called "Advantages" that says the SAT predicts grades for first-year university students, followed by a separate, later section that called "Criticism" that says the GRE doesn't predict grades for grad students.

Whether university admissions tests predict grades is one topic, so it should all be in the same section. If you don't understand this completely, then the simple rule is this: If you are tempted to create a section whose title sounds anything like these: Criticism, Praise, Advantages, or Disadvantages, then you are probably making a mistake, and you should talk about your goals here first.

There is a massive amount of work yet to be done, but I think that most of the re-arranging is finally finished. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality in the "disadvantages" subsection

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "disadvantages" subsection fails to address competing arguments. While there may be merits to the points raised by those mentioned in the section, I feel as though for a live and unclear issue it is a requirement to address multiple sides of the issue to maintain neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.152.128.205 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)