Re: [Phys-l] What's the point of teaching to the test when it's graded inaccurately?

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

Here's a sample question of the kind that might be used in a creativity 
test.
(You will recognize that a sample of one question, that has not been 
standardized
for the qualities sought is  not what one would call reliable...)

On a single line of regular paper, 8.5 X 11.5 in.,  list as many items 
as you can, that connect the following concepts: vacation, vocation, 
vacant.   Place a comma between each separate concept that you list.
[answer follows - don't scroll down if you'd care to test drive this 
question.]
'



'




'



'



'



'



'



'



'



'
[Answer key: count the number of commas on one line  (=A), and for any 
pictures or symbols or diagrams included on that line,  count them too 
(=B) and multiply their number by five.
The result is the sum of these two parts. (A + 5B)
8+ is creatively above average.          ]
:-)

curtis osterhoudt wrote:
> As a slight tangent to this (but I'm always up for a good advocatus diaboli argument), I went to a talk a few weeks ago by a researcher who is specializing in finding correlates between measureable (functional MRI, etc.) brain activities and creativity. He got a lot of flak for not being able to quantify (or even define, without oodles of addenda and exceptions) "creativity"; however, he made a damned good case that such things *seem* to be correlated, and may be much more quantifiable in the future. Some very smart people are working on this messy psychological stuff, and many of them really understand statistics, how not to lie with them, and what constitutes "measureability" in such cases.
>
>    I'd be willing to bet that at this time ETS can't test (in any convincing way) for "creativity". Probably the same for "empathy", or any of a multitude of floppily-defined things. It seems to me that those sorts of qualities which would (to my mind) require a kind of Turing test are exactly what ETS would fall down on.
>
>              --C.O.
> ...as
> Devil's Advocate:
> What personal quality that is in some way observable, can you cite,
> that I cannot in turn,  conceptualize a test for?
>
> Quist, Oren wrote:
>   
> > The ETS has a certain arrogance about them that I have never liked.  They claim to be able to test for anything.  If there is something you would like to determine about someone (or a group), they can come up with a test to find out for sure whether they know it or not.  I don't think this can be done for many things!
> >
> > Oren Q.