Comments on: When Are We Going to Stop Giving Kids Tests That They Can Cheat On?

By: Pat Sine

Pat Sine — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:45:14 +0000

OMG!!! In almost every presentation I do to educators, I ask for the school synonym for “collaboration.”

EVERYONE knows it’s Cheating!

By: Tawanna Smith

Tawanna Smith — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:45:50 +0000

I second that amen. I also agree that educators must think outside the box. Give students projects that require them to use their technological skills to gather the answer. Gone should be the paper and pencil test. Students should be doing while learning. It is no fun have a teacher talking at for 90 minutes or even 45 minutes. There are so many tools available for free and pay that we as educators can reinvent the way assessment is done. At the end of the class what do we want the students to get out of the information presented to them?

By: Ja, takk, begge deler « Mitt hJØRNe av web’en

Ja, takk, begge deler « Mitt hJØRNe av web’en — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:58:38 +0000

[…] som mange ‘School 2.0′-evangelister kjemper for; som Will Richardson skriver: “When Are We Going to Stop Giving the Kids Tests That They Can Cheat On?” […]

By: Great Post on Cheating « Ennaxor314’s Weblog

Great Post on Cheating « Ennaxor314’s Weblog — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:49:15 +0000

[…] Post on Cheating The post available here starts as a simple question, but the responses are wonderful. I specifically like the comment by […]

By: В московском районе Митино - карантин - ТВ Центр - Официальный сайт телеканала

В московском районе Митино - карантин - ТВ Центр - Официальный сайт телеканала — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:14:23 +0000

[…] When Are We Going to Stop Giving Kids Tests That They Can Cheat On? […]

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:49:58 +0000

Benjamin,
I believe authentic assessment can help to “test” application of one’s knowledge/thinking better than other types of assessment (especially tests).

By: Carl Anderson

Carl Anderson — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:31:37 +0000

I have not thought this one out completely yet, but what about tests like the NWEA tests that change the difficulty levels of the questions based on the student’s prior responses? I am sure these could be cheated on too but probably not all that easy. They are also supposed to be presented to students as diagnostic tests that inform teachers what the student needs and not a summative assessment that measures how much a student learned. They still don’t tell us if a student knows how to apply the information.

By: glen

glen — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:57:16 +0000

I’m amazed at the length of this thread so far and there have been some very interesting comments and insightful responses. I have been hoping that someone will discuss the other stated purpose of testing and how it impacts this situation.

We know that there are a number of reasons that students don’t do well on tests, either they don’t have the ponies, they were under-prepared or hit a bad spot in the space-time continuum for the the hour they were writing the test or whatever.

However, one of the other main reasons that students don’t do well on tests is that they weren’t taught the material or it wasn’t presented in a way that supports learning.

Undergrad education courses in testing and assessment introduce the notion that testing is as much to improve instruction as it is a dipstick of student learning. Somehow that doesn’t get much play, it is all about measuring the deficiencies in students not inadequacies in instruction.

In my experience, students pick up on the subtexts of blame and control. So do teachers and the whole deal becomes a travail.
I wonder what would happen if students could see that testing was actually being used to improve instruction. They might get the picture that cheating on the test just gives the system the mistaken notion that it is doing a better job than may be the case.

By: Benjamin Baxter

Benjamin Baxter — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:57:12 +0000

Tests Students Can Cheat On include anything involving fill-in-the-blank or scantron-style tests. That wipes out any of the simplest forms of fact-recall questions.

Students can cheat on any other established form of test, too, if they go to extreme lengths. Or if they manage to get their hands on a cell phone.

Individual, sequestered assessments — authentic assessments as well, as most people seem to believe — in a controlled environment is the only way to remove the healthy expectation that, somewhere, a student is cheating.

What kind of reasonable assessment couldn’t a student cheat on?

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:47:59 +0000

Another weigh in:

Is the SAT/GMAT/GRE/MCAT/LSAT considered a test student’s cheat on?

If not, is taking a Kaplan or Princeton review course considered “cheating” since it is supposed to measure your aptitude for advanced study?

By: Carl Anderson

Carl Anderson — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:49:19 +0000

The issue though, is what we are talking about in this comment thread are tests that students can cheat on. Tests of that nature measure what information our students can recall. How can a student cheat on a performance assessment? What I have observed are students who would do poorly on the tests that are of the type that “students can cheat on” but be able to apply the same knowledge very well when assessed differently…when assessed with an assessment tool the student sees value in using. What is put into question is not the core knowledge or how technology has changed our notions of core knowledge but rather whether or not our traditional assessment tools really measure the kind of information we are trying to obtain. I would contend that “tests students can cheat on” do not give us reliable data on where a student is academically or what they really know. This is the case not only because some cheaters will taint the data pool but also because student apathy toward such assessments yields inaccurate results. If we want to keep using these kinds of assessments we need to realize what we are really assessing: How well a student can perform when they are apathetic about the test’s results.

By: Mike Redfearn

Mike Redfearn — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:13:29 +0000

I totally agree Rob.

The most authentic and rewarding assessments in courses I have either taken or taught - involved a chance to creatively and thoughtfully apply skills and knowledge to a meaningful and engaging issue.

I fear a number of educators are still too afraid to let get of the mantra from the Beatles song Across the Universe, “nothing’s gonna change my world”.

By: Benjamin Baxter

Benjamin Baxter — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:24:06 +0000

The end of the first graf should read:

“…is a foundation for valid higher-level thinking.”

http://awaitingtenure.wordpress.com/

By: Benjamin Baxter

Benjamin Baxter — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:23:03 +0000

Knowledge isn’t just a having a list of facts. Knowledge, to my understanding, is also having some ability to sort out the list of facts, being able to determine if a fact is relevant. That can be the hardest part in any lower-level thinking, and is the foundation for valid.

Bloom’s levels of thinking aren’t autonomous and distinct from each other. As you move on to each successive level of thinking, you’re supposed to be doing all the previous levels, too.

Providing a student with a list of facts for my money undermines the first level of thinking, and therefore the rewards reaped by higher-level thinking.

By: Benjamin Baxter

Benjamin Baxter — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:13:23 +0000

If I were grading on sensibilities, I’d be predisposed to giving higher scores to students who disagree with me, actually. I like dissent, as long as it is well-reasoned and shows evidence of thinking.

All I care about is evidence of thinking, for which hard facts happen to be necessary. Giving students the information does them a disservice — they aren’t forced to sort through the irrelevant information.