Creating Tests and Quizzes

[caroljane]

. " Our Logic teacher, Mr. Coates can play any sport well. I've seen him doing well at basketball, touch football, volleyball, and soccer."

You could also use this for a literature quiz - "Give example of an "unreliable narrator"---

- couldn't resist.

[BaalChatzaf]

. " Our Logic teacher, Mr. Coates can play any sport well. I've seen him doing well at basketball, touch football, volleyball, and soccer." What is the error in this argument?

.

How good is he at shot putting and throwing the javelin? Can he hurl the caber? And what is his batting average?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

Actually, dude and dudette, this was supposed to be an erroneous statement and the kids are supposed to get the humor....I guess that means my batting average in humor and hurling the bull isn't too good after all?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Thinking in principles and thinking in essentials

I want to pick up further on a really important point Adam made in Post #24. Giving a test is a teaching tool. Clearly, knowing "Oh God, Mr. Coates will probably test us on all this" forces them to organize and retain. But knowing the tests will be of principles, developing the skill of organizing material in essentials, and knowing what are the most important aspects of the mass of material they read or we cover in class are some of the most vital thinking skills any mature individual can possess. For those who are down on "drill and kill", too much testing, or teaching to the test, that array of "top level" thinking skills frequently can't be found elsewhere in school, and are almost never taught today -except- by a teacher who very frequently tests, who makes it a major part of understanding and of the grade, and whose tests are well-balanced for all that.

I also found that every time I sat down and wrote a test, wrote more questions than could be used, polished and refined them, *I* learned more. Even if it was a subject I clearly understood. Take the course or the unit or the book and tie a nice little bow around it in the mind. It's all about the organization.

Note also that in the Logic test above, I used another technique that should be more frequent. The test should not just be on the most recent material (last week, this chapter), but it should be cumulative. (One way to encourage this -- and to get them to keep and/or correct in writing all of their test papers -- is to tell them right up front that you will sometimes ask them one or more of the same test questions on the final or on a later test.)

If you ever teach something, not testing them is shortchanging them*. Not giving a 'hard' test is shortchanging them as well.

*Sometimes I've even had the chutzpah to hand out a quiz to adults after a lecture. (If you look up chutzpah in the dictionary, you'll see my picture on the page.)

[BaalChatzaf]

^^^

What hard and fast rule is there to determine what is "essential" and what is not?

Is it possible that one can be wrong in declaring this or that to be essential? Or even worse is it possible to be wrong about what is inessential?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

. " Our Logic teacher, Mr. Coates can play any sport well. I've seen him doing well at basketball, touch football, volleyball, and soccer." What is the error in this argument?

.

How good is he at shot putting and throwing the javelin? Can he hurl the caber? And what is his batting average?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The caber is tossed, not hurled.

The stone is curled... I've never seen evidence he could wield a broom, either

[Philip Coates]

Have I wasted my time posting these tests?

[Selene]

Have I wasted my time posting these tests?

Mr. Coates:

How so?

I did not think so.

Heck, I even asked a specific question, remember?

Who could vote in America after the American Revolution and who could not vote?

Adam

[william.scherk]

Nope. You are not wasting your time. This is one of your areas of expertise. You shall have figured out long ago what pleasure you derive from these exercises. Me, I still have an earlier exam to struggle through, on some other horrifying thread involving Physics. Then I am going to struggle through your first example above. I am still gauging my witlessness and general degeneracy, along with writing liturgy for the Objective Assembly ...

There is so much I do not know, Phil! Have pity for those like me ... blundering, degenerating, flailing.

More seriously still, how many times have you read an article and given a sub-audible "hmmh" and in no other way reacted -- like not react by sending a sweet wee card to the writer, or saying Objective-ist rosary over his or her damned soul, or even maybe sending a sternly worded letter To Whom It May Concern in power centres like New York or Washington or OL? And how many times have you pined for a sweet wee card from your readers?

In a lot of ways, Phil, I do not know who you write for, if not for your own pleasure. Me, I take pleasure in my writing, above and beyond the pleasure I believe -- stupefied by solipsism -- that it gives to others.

Of course, I understand that writing joy comes from giving both pain and pleasure to attentive readers. I accept that I stumble, I use my social skills and backstage conversations to chat with my readers and critics and perhaps ameliorate my bad front-of-house behaviour. I do I try to use each interaction to increase my abilities to get MY points across (at the same time as I may learn just how wrong I am about one point or another, of course), and so I suppose I try to teach my own purse-lipped and peremptory lessons in my own crypto-schoolmarm manner.

So, me, I'd surely rue the end of a thread I had spun, but then move on quietly -- unless I myself could sum up points in a post of such genius that critics fall mute and friends weep.

[Brant Gaede]

My pleasure and pain thresholds have yet to be breached by you, Bill, but I can feel the pressure on both ends.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

subject: response to attempt at 'feedback'

" In a lot of ways, Phil, I do not know who you write for, if not for your own pleasure."

Dear Canadian red baseball cap boy: writers like feedback. . .

" Unless I myself could sum up points in a post of such genius that critics fall mute and friends weep."

. . especially when their points are fresh enough - or raise enough relevant issues so insightfully and with such force - that the outshone sun goes and hides behind a tree in embarrassment, that boo-birds gnash their teeth in jonathannd-like frustration, and that admirers multiply like rabbits in heat after a meal of oyster stew.

" Move on quietly."

Fat chance. Writers never shut up, they never leave a reaction or feeling unexpressed. . . or fail to rephrase it.

[caroljane]

Nope. You are not wasting your time. This is one of your areas of expertise. You shall have figured out long ago what pleasure you derive from these exercises. Me, I still have an earlier exam to struggle through, on some other horrifying thread involving Physics. Then I am going to struggle through your first example above. I am still gauging my witlessness and general degeneracy, along with writing liturgy for the Objective Assembly ...

There is so much I do not know, Phil! Have pity for those like me ... blundering, degenerating, flailing.

More seriously still, how many times have you read an article and given a sub-audible "hmmh" and in no other way reacted -- like not react by sending a sweet wee card to the writer, or saying Objective-ist rosary over his or her damned soul, or even maybe sending a sternly worded letter To Whom It May Concern in power centres like New York or Washington or OL? And how many times have you pined for a sweet wee card from your readers?

In a lot of ways, Phil, I do not know who you write for, if not for your own pleasure. Me, I take pleasure in my writing, above and beyond the pleasure I believe -- stupefied by solipsism -- that it gives to others.

Of course, I understand that writing joy comes from giving both pain and pleasure to attentive readers. I accept that I stumble, I use my social skills and backstage conversations to chat with my readers and critics and perhaps ameliorate my bad front-of-house behaviour. I do I try to use each interaction to increase my abilities to get MY points across (at the same time as I may learn just how wrong I am about one point or another, of course), and so I suppose I try to teach my own purse-lipped and peremptory lessons in my own crypto-schoolmarm manner.

So, me, I'd surely rue the end of a thread I had spun, but then move on quietly -- unless I myself could sum up points in a post of such genius that critics fall mute and friends weep.

What you said.

Also, to Phil, keep in mind that the majority of your readers are browsers only. Check out the number of times your threads have been read- they will keep increasing. There could be people out there who have been inspired by you to read Atlas, or to take rational charge of their lives, or to study American history because of you, although you will never know who they are.

Wish I could say the same when my gem-like specimens of deathless prose on vital subjects go totally unacknowledged. I darkly suspect most of my browsers are just bloody Canucks fans, laughing at me.

[Selene]

I darkly suspect most of my browsers are just bloody Canucks fans, laughing at me.

She knows that we are following her!

[caroljane]

I darkly suspect most of my browsers are just bloody Canucks fans, laughing at me.

She knows that we are following her!

Well, a follower is a follower. I guess I'll take them.

[caroljane]

subject: response to attempt at 'feedback'

Dear Canadian red baseball cap boy: writers like feedback. .

Fat chance. Writers never shut up, they never leave a reaction or feeling unexpressed. . . or fail to rephrase it.

Phil, do not generalize about writers. They are just people who happen to have a knack for writing. A lot of them hate feedback, even (sometimes especially) positive feedback (think JD Salinger) some are indifferent, some are praise whores or so narcissistic that they cannot believe anyone who doesn't enjoy their writing isn't just jealous.

Rich Engle used to have a tagline about writers being untameable. Ha, I bet nobody ever offered him a decent ghostwriting contract.

News flash, writers don't even have to be especially smart. It helps, of course, as it does in every profession, but it's not a requirement. Some very, very good novelists have had very average intelligence (FS Fitzgerald, in my view) and some, especially in bestselling genres, are complete knucklebrains.

On the never shutting up part though, you are 100% right.

[Philip Coates]

> Phil, do not generalize about writers.

Daunce, I should have said -this- writer gets tired if his work is met with dead silence.

Example: I had a sort of prestigious opening to publish a philosophical piece on Thomas Hobbes in a scholarly journal. I thought I did a good job. But that journal has no letters column and had no online equivalent. So my feedback? Crashing silence. To this day, I have no knowledge whether most subscribers read it, found it interesting it, hated it, found it too non-academic or what.

So I've not attempted to write for the IR since. Just for that one reason: No way to see any response. No way to push the critical response or dialogue further.

/Warning: I feel a "rant" coming on - put on youir asbestos underwear and clear the room/

I often feel embarrassed on this list for someone like George as well. Many times he or someone other than me has written a really thought-provoking post or mini-essay. But you couldn't see here any 'pulse' not even two words: good points. Or three words: made me think.

Even a "browser" can muster much non-snarky effort (on occasion.) I find Olists very similar to the guys who attend Oclubs (Oist regional clubs.) They want a club, let the organizer do all the work, bitch when things aren't perfect, but never lift a finger to do any work.

Too much to expect? Give me a good energetic Christian who gets off his fucking butt and out of his fucking armchair any day.

[caroljane]

> Phil, do not generalize about writers.

Daunce, I should have said -this- writer gets tired if his work is met with dead silence.

Example: I had a sort of prestigious opening to publish a philosophical piece on Thomas Hobbes in a scholarly journal. I thought I did a good job. But that journal has no letters column and had no online equivalent. So my feedback? Crashing silence. To this day, I have no knowledge whether most subscribers read it, found it interesting it, hated it, found it too non-academic or what.

So I've not attempted to write for the IR since. Just for that one reason: No way to see any response. No way to push the critical response or dialogue further.

/Warning: I feel a "rant" coming on - put on youir asbestos underwear and clear the room/

I often feel embarrassed on this list for someone like George as well. Many times he or someone other than me has written a really thought-provoking post or mini-essay. But you couldn't see here that any 'pulse' not even two words: good points. Or three words: made me think.

Even a "browser" can exert that much effort (on occasion.) I find Olists very similar to the guys who attend Oclubs (Oist regional clubs.) They want a club, let the organizer do all the work, bitch when things aren't perfect, but never lift a finger to do any work.

Too much to expect? Give me a good energetic Christian who gets off his fucking butt and out of his fucking armchair any day.

Phil, I absolutely hear you and I believe i do understand. It's just Newtonian. We expect an action - a hard-wrought, thoughtful, deeply felt piece of writing - to have a reaction. it doesn't have to be equal, and of course we hope it isn't opposite. But we want the thought and passion we fling into the world to be flung back in some form, an acknowledgment from reality.

It's just a numbers game, really. So much more is written than ever will be read, on any given day, that anyone but a writer would just run away howling and sign up for a welding course. The pay would be way better

I can't say more than wss has already said well, except that I always read and appreciate what you write.

[Philip Coates]

Thanks, Daunce. I value your feedback. You're one of the few people who does respond quite often** on this list. In my case, I am quite aware that many of the readers on this list would not 'give Phil the satisfaction' of responding directly when I make an interesting or provocative point. They have such a high degree of dislike or resentment***. But, as I said it's not just me. George's good posts, a recent post by Dennis H, past posts by Stephen B or ...what was the name of the fellow who was abrasive but knew a lot about linguistics...?..ah! Ted!...and those of others are often ignored.

Those are reasons why I'm moving more and more toward finding other people to write for****, talk to: just a general disgust with either the smallmindedness or the passivity or intellectual lameness of so many of the regulars here. And, yes, it is a numbers game: As the number of frequent participants shrinks, there is some tendency for frequent flyers to color the proceedings. And those who hover over a board often tend toward the more shallow or mean of spirit.

**As you point out, no one could possibly respond to everything that they read, even on a smallish, quasi-intimate "discussion forum".

***And it's not just toward me; it's internecine potshotting. There is an enormous number of petty feuds and illwill between all sorts of groups of individuals on this list. Smoldering feuds and injured feelings are just two of the things Oists - as lacking in tact and people skills and as much brilliant but highly malevolent "loners" as they so often are.

****I can already see three people asking "Ok, if you want to address others so why don't you just GO away already?" and my answer is for exactly the reason they would prefer that.

Hmmm.... Is there a character in fiction that would capture the lying in the weeds OIst substratum? Dickens?