[ExI] standard form for creating a test, was: RE: humanities plus schmooze
pharos at gmail.com
Sat Dec 8 20:05:41 UTC 2012
On 12/8/12, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> If spike's test is about rocket science... isn't the audience also
Yes, but it doesn't matter.
Testing for levels of knowledge in any subject is standard methodology.
> presentation of questions. I have an easier time writing the code
> than learning someone else's implementation of a branching quiz maker
> 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.
More information about the extropy-chat