Check here for assignment updates, notes on or about the reading, or to ask questions. Please feel free to talk to each other--but keep it civil.
Eng. IV Assignments, information
Frankenstein
APE IV due dates, assignments, etc.
Mar. 28 Movie, Gattica or (my choice-- Mary Shelley bio) Begin Frankenstein April 1-Blog April 2 Chapters 1-4, Frankenstein April 3 Chapter 5 and essays in class April 7 Through Chapter 7 April 9 Through Vol II, Chap. I & II April 21 Through Chap. III of VOLUME III Extra credit for your own copy! In-class writing MC practice
APE III due dates and assignments
Arg. Against Nat'l ID Cards, Ques. 3 p. 616, TIA Mar. 24 MC Practice, 5 Steps, p. 247 Mar. 28 Arg. Paper Peer Reviews April 1 April 2-Begin The Things They Carried ACT Prep Course April 4 FINAL DRAFT ARG. PAPER APRIL 7 MAP TESTING April 8-10 TTTC through p 38 April 11 TTTC through p 61 by April 14 APE III TEST MAY 14 Final Book review May
I think that high stakes tests put too much emphasis on students. These tests are not fair for the people who are bad test takers. These could be the people that do really bad in school or really good in school, just some people have trouble taking them. Others do not have a care in the world and end up doing the best sometimes. Then colleges will look at these exams and determine whether your smart enough for them? They look at other things too but a lot has to do with the score you made on some high stakes test. Not all high stakes test are for college, but still the pressure doesn't change, and one grade will be the main objective to whether you get in or not.
I wonder about that whole concept college concept. As I was reading the (really long) essays in TIA, I was comparing their assumptions to what I've heard all my life.
Honestly, I do have a major fault in education, but it is /not/ testing. I'm good at testing. It tends to be where I shine. Nevertheless, I have always been told that colleges look at things other than SAT and ACT scores. More to the point, I certainly have been receiving a lot of mail from colleges claiming that my test scores aren't a true representation of "me."
Occasionally, I have the tenancy to mutter "Awww, why not?"
I think that's got to be proof that opinions on stuff like that depend on the strengths of the individual.
Proof, too, that different sorts of data should be looked into to decide the true value of the entity--student, teacher, school, city, whatever.
High stakes test better prepare students for the real world. Students that do well on these tests are obviously better than other people. The most important of all these tests, the ACT, says the most about a person's character and value to society
Hey, guys! I may be in Columbia, BUT I AM WATCHING YOU! Keep those comments on track, okay?
How about this on high stakes testing (you READ the essay, right?) Are there any positive outcomes from hs tests? Are there some unintended outcomes or benefits?
I agree with twinkle. I think too much is put on the line for just one test. I know personally that sometimes there are days when I'm a great test taker, and other days when I'm not. to me, it doesn't seem fair to have so much decided on how well of a test taker you are on a certain day. Also high stales test only cover a certain amount of material. i know on the Act You only have like math, science, and english. But what if you want to become a music major? None of those things really play in. I had a friend who was going into music. He got a low score on the ACT but was one of the only kids ever too get 100% on the MSU music theory test.Yeah there are some good factors about high stakes test. For example it really proves how much you know on those certain subjects on that day. But i think the bad outweighs the good
I think that tests can be both bad and good. On the good side, they are a way to pressure students to learn and know the subjects. Tests also spark competition between students for "the highest grade in class"...etc. They add an extra shove to get the students going. On the bad side, I do not think that tests are an accurate way of showing how smart someone is. As mentioned above, some people just are not good test-takers and would benefit more from another method of determining their "brain power" or their ability to grasp concepts. Tests also tend to encourage students to quickly memorize the information instead of actually learning it and retaining it. Due to tests, kids are spitting out information that they will just forget the next day. -So i guess what i am trying to say is: Tests provide competition and a push to learn, but is any learning actually taking place?
RIGHT. bad>good. high stakes testing is a pain in the @$$. there is so much emphasis put on achieving a high score on the SAT or ACT a bad score can ruin your life. like Gonzo said, the test only focuses on 4 areas of all the collective material you have learned since 7th grade. fot instance, the science portion portion of the ACT ahs almost nothing to do with science. it consists of graph after graph of incomprehensible data that has to be deciphered within less than a minute or you fail that portion. when i took it i didn't see anthing about chemical formulas, tadpoles becoming frogs, and nuclear miosis. those are the thing ive learned in science for the past five years, not interpreting graphs. maybge what im trying to say is that all science teachers should teach is how to read a graph, then there students will be able to score high on the ACT. but teaching graphs and learning about them is really boring and doesn't really apply to that much of scinece. dont get me wrong, you need to know how to read a graph, but focusing the whole science section of hte ACT on it is ludacris.
I think one of the biggest issues we have to think about in high stakes testing is the student. Not all students learn the same that is why teachers are taught skills in classroom differentiated learning. If not all students learn the same why do we base student knowledge and comprehension on the same test?
High stakes testing is a sin and should be destroyed before it takes over the world. It causes students, or other paticipants, to stress majorly about a litte test. I also agree with twinkle that bad test takers who are really smart fail for an unacceptable reason. The students should be tested on how much progress the grow over time and not over one single TEST!
I don't understand how test like this have been around for so long when everyone agrees that they aren't right! If we want to see them go away we should change it! (but i guess we could only do that with really good college educations which would require great test scores, which would make the person biased toward the test!!)
I think that these tests help, because they tell colleges a little more about the student, and help separate people into different classes for college. It is good for us to be somewhat separtated because everyone can learn in the way and with the type of and amount of help that is best for them.
Of course we should not be measured solely based a standardized test...there should be other things that contribute when anyone is assessing you, like colleges look at activities and essays you write as well as ACTs and SATs
Contrary to Caligula's statement, I receive quite a bit of mail from colleges telling me that my test scores make me one of the most promising students in the nation, and they don't seem to really care what I'm doing in other areas.
High stakes tests put too much pressure on students and teachers. Some students are excellent in schools but blank out during these test. Some students get too nervous and mess up on the test that they know is important. On the other hand, it puts pressure on teachers because someone can be a good teacher but sometimes the students dont' want to learn or just give up. Sure these test are important, but so is relaxing during a test.
My question is if a test is the same for everyone. Hince the name standardized testing. How does this type of test seperate students for college fairly? You do not see and art, music, sports, film, photograpy, or journalism portion of questions on the test. how can a high stakes test judge what type or possible amount of help you may need in college?
Caligula said that (he?she?) was getting lots of mail from colleges that said those test scores don't matter. But they're sending you this stuff based on your score on the PLAN or PSAT. So obviously it does matter. And these tests do see what progress you've made. That's the whole f---ing point people!
i can see how the test matters because of your core class in high school, but if you are (as Dr. Gonzo said previously) not planning to become the math major or next science guy, then where do you fit in. What happens when a girl like me thats not so great at test taking doesn't make the best grade and there for gets looked down upon when all i want to do is become a theater major.
Those of us who have recently taken the PSAT, PLAN, SAT or ACT are receiving a flood of information. ... well, those of us who filled in information on said tests. (You know you can avoid all that right?) Most of the colleges participating in this flood have not seen anything but test scores.
I was talking about the booklets and crap that seem to be dropping like flies. "Ten Tips to Getting Into College!" Every single one says "We look at things beside SAT and ACT scores when determining acceptances." Every. Single. One. It's almost sickening how repetitive it is.
Which story is true? Who knows. I am, though, sick of hearing people gripe about how the SAT and ACT are unfair. Look at what Jones said: "I don't understand how test like this have been around for so long when everyone agrees that they aren't right! If we want to see them go away we should change it!" Obviously, after so long, enough people still support the testing that it's still around. (But the SAT has gone through changes recently. The ACT may have, too.)
I think you're missing the point on the "Science" section, Burgundy. The ACT and SAT obviously can't ask "What's the charge of a sodium ion" on a national test--not the way schools are set up right now, anyway. (India has national tests to pass every single class that guarantees that each student should know such details.)
Instead, the ACT and SAT test basic stills. Reading comprehension, writing skills, an understanding of grammar, math and the interpretation of graphs. Those are all /skills/ that come in handy in the real world--things that all educated students have the ability to pick up, no matter what classes they take.
Calig, I get what it's supposed to test you over... 'basic skills', If it's basic school-taught skills how is it that a student, with a 3.9 gpa and high grades, who usually does fairly well on these 'standardized' tests, can get only a slightly above average score, when by the school system standards they are topping the courses they take?
The money that has been attached to standardized tests has caused teachers to develop atrocious teaching habits in order to obtain higher test scores. These habits include teaching to the lowest denominator and leaving the average and ubove average children to fend for themselves. Also many teachers now only cover what students will be asked about on the standardized tests. This causes our educational system to slowly deteriorate as more and more kids are left behind for the sake of test scores.
I know when I say to say anything about this people usually tell me to shut up, but I may have just gotten lucky. When I hear about people who are as smart or smarter than me getting an average score, it makes me think that these tests are kinda messed up. Still, most colleges look at other stuff like your transcript and activities I think.
27 comments:
I think that high stakes tests put too much emphasis on students. These tests are not fair for the people who are bad test takers. These could be the people that do really bad in school or really good in school, just some people have trouble taking them. Others do not have a care in the world and end up doing the best sometimes. Then colleges will look at these exams and determine whether your smart enough for them? They look at other things too but a lot has to do with the score you made on some high stakes test. Not all high stakes test are for college, but still the pressure doesn't change, and one grade will be the main objective to whether you get in or not.
I wonder about that whole concept college concept. As I was reading the (really long) essays in TIA, I was comparing their assumptions to what I've heard all my life.
Honestly, I do have a major fault in education, but it is /not/ testing. I'm good at testing. It tends to be where I shine. Nevertheless, I have always been told that colleges look at things other than SAT and ACT scores. More to the point, I certainly have been receiving a lot of mail from colleges claiming that my test scores aren't a true representation of "me."
Occasionally, I have the tenancy to mutter "Awww, why not?"
I think that's got to be proof that opinions on stuff like that depend on the strengths of the individual.
Proof, too, that different sorts of data should be looked into to decide the true value of the entity--student, teacher, school, city, whatever.
High stakes test better prepare students for the real world. Students that do well on these tests are obviously better than other people. The most important of all these tests, the ACT, says the most about a person's character and value to society
Hey, guys! I may be in Columbia, BUT I AM WATCHING YOU! Keep those comments on track, okay?
How about this on high stakes testing (you READ the essay, right?) Are there any positive outcomes from hs tests? Are there some unintended outcomes or benefits?
I agree with twinkle. I think too much is put on the line for just one test. I know personally that sometimes there are days when I'm a great test taker, and other days when I'm not. to me, it doesn't seem fair to have so much decided on how well of a test taker you are on a certain day. Also high stales test only cover a certain amount of material. i know on the Act You only have like math, science, and english. But what if you want to become a music major? None of those things really play in. I had a friend who was going into music. He got a low score on the ACT but was one of the only kids ever too get 100% on the MSU music theory test.Yeah there are some good factors about high stakes test. For example it really proves how much you know on those certain subjects on that day. But i think the bad outweighs the good
I think that tests can be both bad and good. On the good side, they are a way to pressure students to learn and know the subjects. Tests also spark competition between students for "the highest grade in class"...etc. They add an extra shove to get the students going.
On the bad side, I do not think that tests are an accurate way of showing how smart someone is. As mentioned above, some people just are not good test-takers and would benefit more from another method of determining their "brain power" or their ability to grasp concepts. Tests also tend to encourage students to quickly memorize the information instead of actually learning it and retaining it. Due to tests, kids are spitting out information that they will just forget the next day.
-So i guess what i am trying to say is: Tests provide competition and a push to learn, but is any learning actually taking place?
RIGHT. bad>good. high stakes testing is a pain in the @$$. there is so much emphasis put on achieving a high score on the SAT or ACT a bad score can ruin your life. like Gonzo said, the test only focuses on 4 areas of all the collective material you have learned since 7th grade. fot instance, the science portion portion of the ACT ahs almost nothing to do with science. it consists of graph after graph of incomprehensible data that has to be deciphered within less than a minute or you fail that portion. when i took it i didn't see anthing about chemical formulas, tadpoles becoming frogs, and nuclear miosis. those are the thing ive learned in science for the past five years, not interpreting graphs. maybge what im trying to say is that all science teachers should teach is how to read a graph, then there students will be able to score high on the ACT. but teaching graphs and learning about them is really boring and doesn't really apply to that much of scinece. dont get me wrong, you need to know how to read a graph, but focusing the whole science section of hte ACT on it is ludacris.
I think one of the biggest issues we have to think about in high stakes testing is the student. Not all students learn the same that is why teachers are taught skills in classroom differentiated learning. If not all students learn the same why do we base student knowledge and comprehension on the same test?
High stakes testing is a sin and should be destroyed before it takes over the world. It causes students, or other paticipants, to stress majorly about a litte test. I also agree with twinkle that bad test takers who are really smart fail for an unacceptable reason. The students should be tested on how much progress the grow over time and not over one single TEST!
I don't understand how test like this have been around for so long when everyone agrees that they aren't right! If we want to see them go away we should change it! (but i guess we could only do that with really good college educations which would require great test scores, which would make the person biased toward the test!!)
I think that these tests help, because they tell colleges a little more about the student, and help separate people into different classes for college. It is good for us to be somewhat separtated because everyone can learn in the way and with the type of and amount of help that is best for them.
Of course we should not be measured solely based a standardized test...there should be other things that contribute when anyone is assessing you, like colleges look at activities and essays you write as well as ACTs and SATs
Contrary to Caligula's statement, I receive quite a bit of mail from colleges telling me that my test scores make me one of the most promising students in the nation, and they don't seem to really care what I'm doing in other areas.
High stakes tests put too much pressure on students and teachers. Some students are excellent in schools but blank out during these test. Some students get too nervous and mess up on the test that they know is important. On the other hand, it puts pressure on teachers because someone can be a good teacher but sometimes the students dont' want to learn or just give up. Sure these test are important, but so is relaxing during a test.
My question is if a test is the same for everyone. Hince the name standardized testing. How does this type of test seperate students for college fairly? You do not see and art, music, sports, film, photograpy, or journalism portion of questions on the test. how can a high stakes test judge what type or possible amount of help you may need in college?
Caligula said that (he?she?) was getting lots of mail from colleges that said those test scores don't matter. But they're sending you this stuff based on your score on the PLAN or PSAT. So obviously it does matter.
And these tests do see what progress you've made. That's the whole f---ing point people!
oy vey...
I'm sorry. I lost my temper
i can see how the test matters because of your core class in high school, but if you are
(as Dr. Gonzo said previously) not planning to become the math major or next science guy, then where do you fit in. What happens when a girl like me thats not so great at test taking doesn't make the best grade and there for gets looked down upon when all i want to do is become a theater major.
Pitt! Hubbard! You both have points.
Those of us who have recently taken the PSAT, PLAN, SAT or ACT are receiving a flood of information. ... well, those of us who filled in information on said tests. (You know you can avoid all that right?) Most of the colleges participating in this flood have not seen anything but test scores.
I was talking about the booklets and crap that seem to be dropping like flies. "Ten Tips to Getting Into College!" Every single one says "We look at things beside SAT and ACT scores when determining acceptances." Every. Single. One. It's almost sickening how repetitive it is.
Which story is true? Who knows. I am, though, sick of hearing people gripe about how the SAT and ACT are unfair. Look at what Jones said: "I don't understand how test like this have been around for so long when everyone agrees that they aren't right! If we want to see them go away we should change it!" Obviously, after so long, enough people still support the testing that it's still around. (But the SAT has gone through changes recently. The ACT may have, too.)
I think you're missing the point on the "Science" section, Burgundy. The ACT and SAT obviously can't ask "What's the charge of a sodium ion" on a national test--not the way schools are set up right now, anyway. (India has national tests to pass every single class that guarantees that each student should know such details.)
Instead, the ACT and SAT test basic stills. Reading comprehension, writing skills, an understanding of grammar, math and the interpretation of graphs. Those are all /skills/ that come in handy in the real world--things that all educated students have the ability to pick up, no matter what classes they take.
Calig, I get what it's supposed to test you over... 'basic skills', If it's basic school-taught skills how is it that a student, with a 3.9 gpa and high grades, who usually does fairly well on these 'standardized' tests, can get only a slightly above average score, when by the school system standards they are topping the courses they take?
The money that has been attached to standardized tests has caused teachers to develop atrocious teaching habits in order to obtain higher test scores. These habits include teaching to the lowest denominator and leaving the average and ubove average children to fend for themselves. Also many teachers now only cover what students will be asked about on the standardized tests. This causes our educational system to slowly deteriorate as more and more kids are left behind for the sake of test scores.
I know when I say to say anything about this people usually tell me to shut up, but I may have just gotten lucky. When I hear about people who are as smart or smarter than me getting an average score, it makes me think that these tests are kinda messed up. Still, most colleges look at other stuff like your transcript and activities I think.
Once again I meant "start to say" sorry guys
Post a Comment