Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Test Corrections Pro/Con

➢ Students must have a way to be successful in the class beyond the test.
o What if the student is not a good test taker?
o What if the student is going through some huge personal stress, a bad day?
➢ Teachers must have a way of documenting improvement.
➢ Test Corrections can be done in a quick and efficient framework. With out too much disruption to the class as a whole.
➢ Re-working one problem gives less assurance in general of mastery of a topic. There is a benefit to the “Test” structure. The randomness of the questions requires a greater level of mastery.
➢ A student’s ability to do math should be the primary reflection of the grade. The mastery of the subject is primarily calculated by tests.
o When a parent sees that their child has received a B in a class, there is a reasonable expectation that they have achieved some level of competency with the material.
➢ There is an ability to cheat the system. Tutors, other students, even over utilizing the teacher.
➢ There seems to be little in the way of research in the effectiveness of corrections.

1 comment:

Mr. Lucchese said...

I am surmising from this post that you give additional credit for the corrections. What if instead of corrections, you divided the test into sections, each demonstrating one skill from the unit? If a student passes that section, he/she doesn't need to take it again. If he/she fails, a similar set of questions will appear on the student's next test until they pass it one or more times. That way they can revisit the skill as many times as is needed for mastery, without having to rework the same set of problems ad nauseum.