[ExI] standard form for creating a test, was: RE: humanities plus schmooze

[BillK]

On 12/8/12, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> If spike's test is about rocket science... isn't the audience also
> engineers?
>

Yes, but it doesn't matter.

Testing for levels of knowledge in any subject is standard methodology.


> I'd be tempted to just write some javascript to control the
> presentation of questions.  I have an easier time writing the code
> than learning someone else's implementation of a branching quiz maker
> interface.


Spike doesn't do Javascript coding. That's why he wants software.


> Also, I would want to gamify this experience so the test
> taker can risk points to get higher-reward (higher challenge)
> questions.  The profile of risk-affection vs risk-aversion is surely
> as important for rocket scientists as whether or not they "know their
> stuff."  Do you want someone who can answer 50 easy(-er) questions
> 100% correctly or someone who can answer 20 difficult questions with
> 80% success?  What margin of error is required to keep your rocket
> from blowing up? (skywriting, not launching, whatever other failure
> modes you're concerned about)
>
>

Rocket scientists don't take risks,  Ask Spike!

Your suggestion is for testing for specific items of knowledge. But
the subject might be a specialist who does indeed know those items,
but doesn't have a clue about many other aspects which might be
required background knowledge.
What you're suggesting is more like interview questions for a very
specific task area, rather than an educator testing for an all-round
knowledge of the subject.

Structured testing, for increased levels, demonstrates that the
subject knows the basics as well as the latest geewhiz tech.


BillK