Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This right here.
Since tests still seem to be "everything", we'll have to step up and gather every last piece of info we can.
One major problem with the on line testing is there is little way to challenge test questions. Since you don't actually have a copy of the test, it's hard to go back when you get your grade and really know what you did wrong. Or if the test was wrong, which is often the case in the courses I've taken. Often it seems the "school solution" to a particular test question hinges on how you interpret a specific word or phrase to fit within the multiple choice design of the test. No room for more in depth explanation as you would have in discussion questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troymclure
Where I went to college (undergrad and graduate), they were a major part.
This is an interesting discussion, but I wonder, should they be? I'm a test engineer by profession and have learned that it is very difficult to design a thorough, statistically valid test. Few school tests would be valid under those rules. Mainly too few questions per test and too few tests per semester mean that even minor errors or misunderstandings can cause wide variation in results. Consider the following scores on a test: 96; 64; 27; 13; 11; 7. (Yes, these are real scores. I vividly remember the test and who made each score in the class because it was so bad.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210
Online programs tend to have less tests and more writing.
Wide variation. In on line courses I've taken, they tend to be heavily weighted toward the tests. In a certificate program only the final research paper was written. All other courses were graded 100% on tests.
Wide variation. In on line courses I've taken, they tend to be heavily weighted toward the tests. In a certificate program only the final research paper was written. All other courses were graded 100% on tests.
My one class in my entire grad program that was solely online, which I took two semesters ago, was assessed in the following way:
-Completion of 15 quizzes over assigned reading for each of 15 units, typically comprised of 30 questions, one unit/quiz to be completed weekly.
-Participation in weekly online discussion forum for each of the 15 units covered, requiring the generation of at least one original discussion question done in an in-depth, essay question style, and responding to a minimum of two other classmates' questions with a short essay each. Completed weekly.
-Over the course of the semester, the completion of five individual papers based on peer-reviewed journal articles assigned in tandem with a given unit, cited in APA format. Papers required to be 5-8 pages in length, each, excluding reference pages. Papers worth 200 points, total.
-Comprehensive final exam consisting of 100 points.
So, a pretty varied bunch of assessments, didn't rely exclusively on either exams or written work.
..This is an interesting discussion, but I wonder, should they be? I'm a test engineer by profession and have learned that it is very difficult to design a thorough, statistically valid test. Few school tests would be valid under those rules. Mainly too few questions per test and too few tests per semester mean that even minor errors or misunderstandings can cause wide variation in results. Consider the following scores on a test: 96; 64; 27; 13; 11; 7. (Yes, these are real scores. I vividly remember the test and who made each score in the class because it was so bad.)
I don't know the answer to your question. But i disagree that you can't design a statistically valid test. I got my BS in EE, and almost every course was determined how you did on the midterm/exam. Many of those courses had bad teachers, but in the fair ones, if you did the homework/drill problems you would be be prepared for the exams. To be clear - it was no picnic, but if you did the work, you would be prepared (except for the occasional jerk professor who's exams were nothing like the homework).
Now, I when I went back for my MSEE, I had plenty of courses with projects, but I still had exams to study for/pass. Is that fair? Don't know. But to really understand some subjects, you have to work out lots of problems - and then do lots and lots more. Having to take exams forces you to do this.
Look at the qualifying exams for many PhD programs. You have to become an expert in several areas, and it's closed book/closed note.
I don't know the answer to your question. But i disagree that you can't design a statistically valid test. I got my BS in EE, and almost every course was determined how you did on the midterm/exam. Many of those courses had bad teachers, but in the fair ones, if you did the homework/drill problems you would be be prepared for the exams. To be clear - it was no picnic, but if you did the work, you would be prepared (except for the occasional jerk professor who's exams were nothing like the homework).
Now, I when I went back for my MSEE, I had plenty of courses with projects, but I still had exams to study for/pass. Is that fair? Don't know. But to really understand some subjects, you have to work out lots of problems - and then do lots and lots more. Having to take exams forces you to do this.
Look at the qualifying exams for many PhD programs. You have to become an expert in several areas, and it's closed book/closed note.
Tests are commonplace in classrooms as a tool for determining grades. But, as you are already aware, majority of the learning in college happens outside of the classroom. Tests don't assess this learning. It does come out with the work you do in research labs, however.
Tests are commonplace in classrooms as a tool for determining grades. But, as you are already aware, majority of the learning in college happens outside of the classroom. Tests don't assess this learning. It does come out with the work you do in research labs, however.
And in articles, essays, and papers you write and/or publish, your performance in clinical practice, etc.
How your knowledge is demonstrated and assessed by the time you are at the undergraduate and/or graduate level generally varies based on individual characteristics of your particular discipline.
Out of curiosity, what would be unfair about that?
I never said it was unfair - I was responding to the rhetorical question from tnff. In fact, if you read my response you would realize I didn't think testing was unfair at all.
In my experience, the classes that relied solely on papers or projects were the easiest to obtain a good grade.
I never said it was unfair - I was responding to the rhetorical question from tnff. In fact, if you read my response you would realize I didn't think testing was unfair at all.
I did read your response, and interpreted it to mean that you thought being assessed according to performance on both projects and tests was somehow unfair. If that's not what you meant, that wasn't clear from your post.
Whether or not completing tests is easier than writing papers or vice versa, and whether either is easier than conducting research trials or completing projects or vice versa is going to vary greatly by individual and his or her skill set and preferences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
