Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Sats Test
Recently there has been a debate about the Sats tests being too difficult for the children. Today the BBC have listed three of the questions. The first is a paragraph about bats and the child has to pick out the word closest to 'eat'. There are two words, consume and feeding and the teacher said consume was right but some children could have written feeding. However it goes on to say that either word was acceptable. So where's the problem here?
The third question, in another paragraph, about a bridge in Austin asked in which American state the bridge is located. The teacher thought that the children might not know American geography but the article stated the bridge was in the state of Texas, it actually gave them the answer.
if the teaching staff are having problems, quote " Staff had to really think about how they would answer these questions ... " then I suggest the exams aren't the problem.
What does anybody else think?
The third question, in another paragraph, about a bridge in Austin asked in which American state the bridge is located. The teacher thought that the children might not know American geography but the article stated the bridge was in the state of Texas, it actually gave them the answer.
if the teaching staff are having problems, quote " Staff had to really think about how they would answer these questions ... " then I suggest the exams aren't the problem.
What does anybody else think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vulcan42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Given that there is limited time to answer the questions I thought that the consume/feeding one was difficult. I ummed and aahed with myself before deciding which one I thought but I had no time pressure. There was no suggestion that either answer would be accepted so a child would spend a lot of time deciding unnecessarily.
I read the bbc article earlier. I have a dog in the fight, given my year six daughter has just gone thru a week of SATS, with this particular one being the one she moaned about most. She has visual impairment, so she has a "reader" who reads the text out to her.
None of those q's seemed too hard for me, especially given both answers were acceptable for the bat one. I'll ask her tonight if she remembers struggling with any of the 3 highlighted qs
None of those q's seemed too hard for me, especially given both answers were acceptable for the bat one. I'll ask her tonight if she remembers struggling with any of the 3 highlighted qs
test here if anyone interested https:/
excuse me - dog is close to wolf..... (DNA wise at least) ( closer than hog or mog)
but they only have o in common
2016 AAT level 3 - 91% of us failed ( having done all the modules), and it wrecked junior college accounting (*)
The exec director - who has now left the org hem hem - said
Oh it is meant to work like that !
( asked questions that had only been in the syllabus 3 weeks)
In the very long term, it doesnt matter much. Like my law degree. Oh lordy lordy, the anger denial resentment of my colleagues for the first ten years - yay yay yay - not a real one, only half a one etc etc
but they only have o in common
2016 AAT level 3 - 91% of us failed ( having done all the modules), and it wrecked junior college accounting (*)
The exec director - who has now left the org hem hem - said
Oh it is meant to work like that !
( asked questions that had only been in the syllabus 3 weeks)
In the very long term, it doesnt matter much. Like my law degree. Oh lordy lordy, the anger denial resentment of my colleagues for the first ten years - yay yay yay - not a real one, only half a one etc etc
(*) the whole point was to get shop floor workers who wanted to administer and cd read and write, into an office job, lowest rung ( class III). They got a certificate that wd allow them into the office
which worked ! three hours a week for two years, formal instruction.
after the 91% failure record, they put in a residence reqt - - office experience needed for 6 m
er - hold it, the whole point was to get them INTO an office
and NOT OK you have made it into an office here is some instruction.
and if you fail, we will say it is your employers crap teaching.
The exec who did this has gone onto greater things
which worked ! three hours a week for two years, formal instruction.
after the 91% failure record, they put in a residence reqt - - office experience needed for 6 m
er - hold it, the whole point was to get them INTO an office
and NOT OK you have made it into an office here is some instruction.
and if you fail, we will say it is your employers crap teaching.
The exec who did this has gone onto greater things
O gawd did I tell you of the maff exam where we were told to put away our log books
none of us cdnt do the sines and cos's questions, which er was most of the exam ! Haw haw haw - and the maff tutor said - you should nt have sat there - you shouldda said - call the police !
yeah yeah yeah, right
teachers as invigilators turn into wild animals - sort of like mods on AB
none of us cdnt do the sines and cos's questions, which er was most of the exam ! Haw haw haw - and the maff tutor said - you should nt have sat there - you shouldda said - call the police !
yeah yeah yeah, right
teachers as invigilators turn into wild animals - sort of like mods on AB
Hardness is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, and I'm not sure that any of us (being no longer 10) are that well-placed to judge whether this was "too hard". That said, I don't personally see an issue with any question, they all seem reasonably well-posed. The "Austin" question is probably the hardest, but it also tests the skill of reading two separate pieces of information and spotting the connection between them: the bridge is in the "city of Austin", Austin is "the capital city of the state of Texas", therefore the bridge is in the state of Texas. If it's hard, it's meant to be. I don't get where the teacher thinks that you *need* to be familiar with US geography to get this, as all the information is right there, so imo it's definitely testing a skill in reading.
I think the bigger issue is that "exam technique" just isn't explained very well. How to cope with doubt, or panic? How to get in the right frame of mind? And, perhaps, better time management -- on the "eat" question, for example, it may be that you aren't sure whether "feeding" is close enough, but for only one mark it's important to recognise that it's not worth spending any more than, say, a minute deciding this. Choose feeding, come back later if you have time, move on. Here, for example, you have one hour to answer 38 questions, covering (presumably) 50 marks. Allowing for reading time, and a period at the end to check, that's one minute per mark maximum. Since you anyway need only around 30 marks to meet the expected standard, it's important too to bear this in mind. I think there's often a mentality that you have to chase every point as you come to it, rather than see the paper as a whole.
I say that with the privilege of having found exams generally an easy experience throughout my life. Which is a horrible boast, but what I mean is that exam-taking is a skill, which can be learned independently of the material. I think a lot of people practise essentially the wrong thing. Alfie did well in his practice exams, for sure, but I wonder how many of those were sat under proper exam conditions -- and in any case, to an extent the answer is "none", because the results from those mocks necessarily had no weight so it's easier to avoid stress. Granted, 11-year-olds perhaps shouldn't be expected to learn the nuance of *how* to do exams well, which brings me to my next point, namely that I think exams are a terrible way of assessing (especially young) children's performance.
I think the bigger issue is that "exam technique" just isn't explained very well. How to cope with doubt, or panic? How to get in the right frame of mind? And, perhaps, better time management -- on the "eat" question, for example, it may be that you aren't sure whether "feeding" is close enough, but for only one mark it's important to recognise that it's not worth spending any more than, say, a minute deciding this. Choose feeding, come back later if you have time, move on. Here, for example, you have one hour to answer 38 questions, covering (presumably) 50 marks. Allowing for reading time, and a period at the end to check, that's one minute per mark maximum. Since you anyway need only around 30 marks to meet the expected standard, it's important too to bear this in mind. I think there's often a mentality that you have to chase every point as you come to it, rather than see the paper as a whole.
I say that with the privilege of having found exams generally an easy experience throughout my life. Which is a horrible boast, but what I mean is that exam-taking is a skill, which can be learned independently of the material. I think a lot of people practise essentially the wrong thing. Alfie did well in his practice exams, for sure, but I wonder how many of those were sat under proper exam conditions -- and in any case, to an extent the answer is "none", because the results from those mocks necessarily had no weight so it's easier to avoid stress. Granted, 11-year-olds perhaps shouldn't be expected to learn the nuance of *how* to do exams well, which brings me to my next point, namely that I think exams are a terrible way of assessing (especially young) children's performance.
Ich's link at 13.50 is to a grammar test, looking at specific grammatical points, which pupils would have to have been taught (and I would suggest that the morethanascore group, who it seems want to have SATS tests done away with, have cherry-picked the questions they have included for difficulty.)
The test in the OP is a reading test and I tend to agree with the comment worrying about the teacher!
Also the comment from a parent about his son having done 15-20 tests before rather supports the suggestion too much time is being spent on preparing for testing.
The test in the OP is a reading test and I tend to agree with the comment worrying about the teacher!
Also the comment from a parent about his son having done 15-20 tests before rather supports the suggestion too much time is being spent on preparing for testing.
//I think the bigger issue is that "exam technique" //
I suspect you are correct there. Although many moons ago (no Sats then) my school held end of term exams, some masters held them mid term too especially Maths and English, so all pupils gained valuabvle experience in exam technique. Simple things like if you dont see the answer pretty much immediately then skip it and do ones you can answer first so you dont run out of time.
The other valuable lesson learned by most is that if you fail you can pick yourself up and that doing well (for most) was achieved by some hard work prior. Unfortunately some schools for some time now work on the principle 'everyone is a winner', when pupils dont do brilliantly it must be a real thump in the stomach.
Also a thing to remember is that exams should be designed to challenge the brightest, otherwise if everyone gets A* then we miss the talent. This being the case then I would expect a large number of pupils to struggle on about 20% of the paper.
I suspect you are correct there. Although many moons ago (no Sats then) my school held end of term exams, some masters held them mid term too especially Maths and English, so all pupils gained valuabvle experience in exam technique. Simple things like if you dont see the answer pretty much immediately then skip it and do ones you can answer first so you dont run out of time.
The other valuable lesson learned by most is that if you fail you can pick yourself up and that doing well (for most) was achieved by some hard work prior. Unfortunately some schools for some time now work on the principle 'everyone is a winner', when pupils dont do brilliantly it must be a real thump in the stomach.
Also a thing to remember is that exams should be designed to challenge the brightest, otherwise if everyone gets A* then we miss the talent. This being the case then I would expect a large number of pupils to struggle on about 20% of the paper.
Either word ought not have been acceptable. Tests are to discover levels of ability and accepting the wrong answer as equally right as the right one, defeats the whole object. One can eat feed, one can consume food, no one can feeding food. Well not unless you are feeding farm animals.
Seems a lot of fuss about nothing to me. I can expect some children not to get things right, that's the point, but if the teacher was confused, well maybe they are in the wrong job.
Seems a lot of fuss about nothing to me. I can expect some children not to get things right, that's the point, but if the teacher was confused, well maybe they are in the wrong job.
While I agree that "consume" is clearly better than "feeding", it's not clear to me that "closest in meaning" automatically implies that the word has to agree with the conjugation as well as the general definition. Eg is "consumes" no longer close enough to be "closest in meaning to 'eat'"? In isolation, perhaps not, but as the only vaguely connected word in a paragraph then it would clearly qualify. But then throw in "chew" and that's closer still, etc.
So in that sense, the definition of "closest in meaning" itself is vague enough to argue that "feeding" isn't far enough away to be penalised, whether or not "consume" is closer.
Adults arguing about whether tests for children are well-posed does generally miss the point. Similarly it's easy to be dismissive about the stress induced when your future isn't at stake. And while technically children's futures aren't, or ought not to be, at stake from a SATs test, it's clearly the impression a lot of them are given. I don't think it's the teachers' fault either -- nor necessarily anybody's except inasmuch as these exams ought not to be held at all, or maybe restructured in a way that reduces the intensity or weight given to the exam portion of assessment.
So in that sense, the definition of "closest in meaning" itself is vague enough to argue that "feeding" isn't far enough away to be penalised, whether or not "consume" is closer.
Adults arguing about whether tests for children are well-posed does generally miss the point. Similarly it's easy to be dismissive about the stress induced when your future isn't at stake. And while technically children's futures aren't, or ought not to be, at stake from a SATs test, it's clearly the impression a lot of them are given. I don't think it's the teachers' fault either -- nor necessarily anybody's except inasmuch as these exams ought not to be held at all, or maybe restructured in a way that reduces the intensity or weight given to the exam portion of assessment.
// Reading some of these answers I detect a tendency to over-complicate the simple. //
Possibly :) For my part, at least, I had a lot at the rest of the test, and I think when it comes to *doing* it, rather than discussing it, I'd find it much easier to be "simple". Often, though, it can get surprisingly complicated to explain simple answers, or at least to discuss them.
Possibly :) For my part, at least, I had a lot at the rest of the test, and I think when it comes to *doing* it, rather than discussing it, I'd find it much easier to be "simple". Often, though, it can get surprisingly complicated to explain simple answers, or at least to discuss them.
Latest Posts
Road rules36 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago