Students who claim to be bad test takers

[diligence]

Students who claim to be "bad test takers"

Do people actually buy into this argument that some students use to explain poor performances on exams? It's always bugged the hell out of me when I hear people say this! Maybe I'm bias, but it sounds like a complete crock of you know what to me!

Documented disabilities are one thing, but beyond that, a tough exam is tough for everybody, either you know the material or you don't!

(end of rant)

 

[Insanity]

It is remarkable how preparing for an exam through studying improves one's performance.
I would put 30 hrs of study time into an exam. I have never failed any exam that I spent time preparing and studying for, of many different subjects.

study and preparation is the key.

Agreed that documented disabilities is one thing. I knew a person who was dyslexic, and he had to get a written notice from a doctor to be granted extra time and a reader for a state exam, which he passed after several attempts, but he passed.

 

[Evo]

I never studied much for exams. I would skim the material and retain it in short term memory, ace the test, then remember little to nothing. It was just a brain dump. Also, a weird thing I mentioned before, I have to stand up while doing the brain dump. I have a really weird ability. It was finally recognized at an AT&T computerized testing center. I don't know how I do it. Or rather, how I did it, chronic sleep deprivation has left me unable to do the information scanning. I could recall keywords and recall the entire page and read it in my mind.

Some people are good at tests, some people aren't. There needs to be some kind of evaluation of long term knowledge retention.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My son has always tested below his abilities. It has been a blessing because it brings him extra services that he needs.

 

[lisab]

Some people have trouble with anxiety. If you need to be relaxed in order to recall information, then that can be a problem.

 

[rootX]

It was just a brain dump.

It applies to most normal at least (not ""ace the test" :tongue2:). It is little use of long term memory because if you not going to use it there is not need to retain it. What you use on daily basis at work, you remember.
Personally, I noticed:
1) There are people who don't like to study but only read about what they find interesting. They would spend excessive time on things that are not required and talk about them a lot with a strong passion. My friend failed because of this.
2) There are people who just read and remember it forever. They think slow but only need to read through material once and they remember it forever. They also do good but only if they care and try to read bit before the exam-night. My friend.
3) There are people who can understand things really fast but they will never concentrate and like #1 will end up spending time talking about things they are passionate about. My overconfident friend.
4) There are people who can retain large amount of things for short term but wouldn't remember a single thing day after exam. Me.
5) There are people who just like to spend time with their friends and enjoy their lives.
6) There are people like number 5, who once determined that they would work hard. My friend who failed one year but ended up 90s when he decided he would work with passion.

 

[Drakkith]

I believe that certain people CAN get so nervous or stressed or whatever that they actually can't think very well. I also believe that these people are pretty rare. In general, I believe that most people who claim this simply don't study like they should.

 

[Evo]

My son has always tested below his abilities. It has been a blessing because it brings him extra services that he needs.

Jimmy, do they have a "no homework" school? Here they have an experimental High School that has only around 90 kids. It ranges from geniuses to challenged kids. It's for kids that don't conform to traditional school. There is no homework as they don't see the point in it. They want the kids to do all of their work at school.

 

[lisab]

I didn't have abnormal amounts of test anxiety, but I hated tests because I was distracted easily, especially in a room full of people.

When I would study, I would sit in a cubical, with earplugs. That was what I needed to focus.

In a room of people, there was always a sniffler, a pen clicker, a cougher, a leg jiggler...sigh. I had a very hard time focusing.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think some people just don't know how to think.

 

[rootX]

I just work hard during the semester trying to know the material inside and out from all different [STRIKE]preservatives [/STRIKE](edit:perspectives) as time allows. Exam time is just relax time relative to my normal week. I noticed people who do otherwise get more anxiety.

It doesn't have anything to do with how to think etc. All in the end matters (for normal people) is passion, proper priorities, and good work ethics. I have seen many people doing extremely good once they understood that there are no secrets to getting things done good.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy, do they have a "no homework" school? Here they have an experimental High School that has only around 90 kids. It ranges from geniuses to challenged kids. It's for kids that don't conform to traditional school. There is no homework as they don't see the point in it. They want the kids to do all of their work at school.

My son has homework to do. They do give him some time to complete his assignments at school, but I insist that he bring it home even if it's finished so I can eyeball it. He likes history the best, but they are giving him assignments that are beyond his capabilities. We do those together. We read the questions and then read the relevant text. When we get to the part that answers the question I tell him that it is the answer and explain why it is the answer. Technically, this is cheating. But he has no understanding of what the assignment means and this is the only way I can think of to try and teach him.

 

[Evo]

My son has homework to do. They do give him some time to complete his assignments at school, but I insist that he bring it home even if it's finished so I can eyeball it. He likes history the best, but they are giving him assignments that are beyond his capabilities. We do those together. We read the questions and then read the relevant text. When we get to the part that answers the question I tell him that it is the answer and explain why it is the answer. Technically, this is cheating. But he has no understanding of what the assignment means and this is the only way I can think of to try and teach him.

In this school, there are less than 10 children per class, the teachers and other children/tutors work individually with each child that needs help. It's an incredible environment.

 

[Dembadon]

Do people actually buy into this argument that some students use to explain poor performances on exams? It's always bugged the hell out of me when I hear people say this! Maybe I'm bias, but it sounds like a complete crock of you know what to me!

Documented disabilities are one thing, but beyond that, a tough exam is tough for everybody, either you know the material or you don't!

(end of rant)

I don't think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_anxiety" is a crock, even though I don't it's classified as a disability.

Being a perfectionist can cause a great deal of anxiety and can also be pretty demoralizing in courses where perfect scores are nearly impossible. I've been trying to learn how to set realistic expectations of myself for a long time. It has been an extremely frustrating, exhausting, depressing, and humbling process, and I still feel like I have a long way to go.

 

[Topher925]

I'm a "bad test taker" depending on the test. Really just math and verbal related exams, like the GRE. According to my standardized test results from high school, I'm borderline retarded and should be mentally incapable of getting PhD in engineering like I currently am. However, when being tested for ADD/ADHD/mental disorders when I was younger, I completely destroyed everyone in my age group in visual, spatial, and pattern recognition.

Now that I'm in grad school, I often get the top score or close to it on exams in all my classes, except for classes that are math intensive. When it comes to that I'm totally helpless, no matter how much I study. Although I've often been called a near mathematical genius in the "real world". Point of my story, academia sucks and written exams and tests are a poor metric for measuring ones intelligence or abilities. Or maybe I just really am as stupid as those standardized test say I am.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In this school, there are less than 10 children per class, the teachers and other children/tutors work individually with each child that needs help. It's an incredible environment.

His mainstream classes have 25 or so students, but his special education classes have about 10 kids and 4 or 5 teachers and aides. In addition he gets some individual instruction from a speech therapist, an occupational therapist, and a social skills therapist. He gets a load of these services because his test scores are low, lower that what he is capable of in a non-test environment.

 

[rootX]

I'm a "bad test taker" depending on the test. Really just math and verbal related exams, like the GRE. According to my standardized test results from high school, I'm borderline retarded and should be mentally incapable of getting PhD in engineering like I currently am. However, when being tested for ADD/ADHD/mental disorders when I was younger, I completely destroyed everyone in my age group in visual, spatial, and pattern recognition.

Now that I'm in grad school, I often get the top score or close to it on exams in all my classes, except for classes that are math intensive. When it comes to that I'm totally helpless, no matter how much I study. Although I've often been called a near mathematical genius in the "real world". Point of my story, academia sucks and written exams and tests are a poor metric for measuring ones intelligence or abilities. Or maybe I just really am as stupid as those standardized test say I am.

Profs/TA not so good at math can teach engineering courses better to most of the students IMO due to their abilities to explain concepts while not relying heavily on math or abstraction. The most popular TA we had failed in first year because he partied too much and was not good in math.

 

[Zryn]

Do people actually buy into this argument that some students use to explain poor performances on exams? It's always bugged the hell out of me when I hear people say this! Maybe I'm bias, but it sounds like a complete crock of you know what to me!

Yes I do.

I also realize that excuses help no one.

Hopefully you can develop an anxiety disorder and experience this first hand.

 

[Containment]

I really don't see why people have problems taking tests they are generally dumbed down questions that aren't even very hard compared to what you would have to solve. I guess I'm one of the weird ones because I hardly even did my homework I only did what I could get done in class while the teacher was yacking about unrelated bs and yet aced almost every test.

 

[arildno]

The phenomenon is real, and quite pervasive, properly understood.
Having had some experience of teaching students at various levels, I will say:
1. Top echelon students are rarely, if ever, performing worse in test situations than in ordinary situations (say, when working with stuff in class)

2. If you go down the grades, however, into the pool of mediocrity, and somewhat above mediocrity then this effect is palpable for quite a few students.

On the other hand, precisely because many lack the ability to relax properly, or shut out external factors (like what grade they "must" get), that is one of the major reasons why they are mediocre to begin with.

 

[Pythagorean]

I've maintained a's in all my graduate classes. I'm a terrible test taker, and it really affected me in undergrad. But grad school is more about research and projects (so far, that's where the weight is) which are my thing.

Tests don't tell you who good researchers are in my experiences.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I'm terrible at tests. I get anxious and then confuse myself, ending up distracted and not concentrating.

I never make that an excuse though.

I have demonstrated many times over that 'in the field' I'm better than in an exam.

My results in non-exam exercises are near perfect but my exam results can range from A to D, even though it's the same subject and in most cases the same material being covered.

Personally, I find the ability to get up and go for a stroll, get some fresh air and clear my mind to be extremely beneficial.

 

[micromass]

Well, I'm lucky: I am a very good test taker. I don't get nervous or anxious on a test.
However, I've met a lot of bright people who were very intelligent, and who performed very badly at tests. They would get anxious and forget everything they've learned, even though they knew it very well before.

This is why I think that timed tests are a very bad method to check whether somebody has the knowledge or not. Sadly, I don't know an alternative...

 

[PhDorBust]

I didn't have abnormal amounts of test anxiety, but I hated tests because I was distracted easily, especially in a room full of people.

When I would study, I would sit in a cubical, with earplugs. That was what I needed to focus.

In a room of people, there was always a sniffler, a pen clicker, a cougher, a leg jiggler...sigh. I had a very hard time focusing.

This, if I have to actually think about something - I need total and complete silence. Listening to the inevitable fat kid to me wheeze incessantly is a concentration killer.

 

[PhDorBust]

Now that I'm in grad school, I often get the top score or close to it on exams in all my classes, except for classes that are math intensive. When it comes to that I'm totally helpless, no matter how much I study. Although I've often been called a near mathematical genius in the "real world". Point of my story, academia sucks and written exams and tests are a poor metric for measuring ones intelligence or abilities. Or maybe I just really am as stupid as those standardized test say I am.

I don't believe that. If you can't do math problems in an isolated setting, how are you going to do them in "real life". I think only way that exams are a poor metric is in the fact that they do not, as they are usually applied, test long-test knowledge and congenial to cramming.

 

[arildno]

Personally, I find the ability to get up and go for a stroll, get some fresh air and clear my mind to be extremely beneficial.

And if your school has not implemented routine programs for letting examinands go for a stroll and a bit of fresh air (under sufficient supervision), that school is a scandal..

 

[Null_]

I didn't have abnormal amounts of test anxiety, but I hated tests because I was distracted easily, especially in a room full of people.

When I would study, I would sit in a cubical, with earplugs. That was what I needed to focus.

In a room of people, there was always a sniffler, a pen clicker, a cougher, a leg jiggler...sigh. I had a very hard time focusing.

Same. I think studying with classical music and no distractions has hurt my ability to perform in a room where calculator cases are sliding, pencils are scratching, people are constantly standing up, etc. I wish I could take exams with music.

(read-I am a "bad test taker." I can do all of the problems in the book when relaxed, but when taking an exam I usually miss a critical detail and end up plummeting. It's not that I don't know how to do the problem, but I just make careless mistakes.)

Edit- I have personally seen those with disabilities abuse their rights, which angers me greatly. I know that some individuals deserve them, but when used solely to cheat...eh..their loss I suppose.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't believe that. If you can't do math problems in an isolated setting, how are you going to do them in "real life". I think only way that exams are a poor metric is in the fact that they do not, as they are usually applied, test long-test knowledge and congenial to cramming.

Because exam conditions are not representative of real life.

When in real life have you been put in a room, told not to talk to anyone and solve the problems in front of you based on what's in your head alone - and on top of that have the threat of everything you do be considered cheating.

* I don't cheat, but I'm always very conscious of what I'm doing, what movements I make etc.

Exams test that you know the subjects covered in the exam - you can study specific details from past papers and and your teachers generally give hints as to what will come up - so you could study very easily the stuff that you know will come up without knowing everything else, look fantastic with the exam result but not know anything outside of the limited scope of the exam.

I like my math lecturers view - "in real life you're not expected to remember everything, I don't remember everything, so why should you?". He provided all required materials short of answering the questions. So you still needed to know what to do, without the onus of remembering every tiny little detail. The fact is, in a real life scenario you can be surrounded by materials to aid you and make sure you do a good job - so why do we sit people in a room without any of this and expect this to be a good representation?

Me plus books could be a better engineer than you plus books, but in the exam you come out better because you have a better memory and don't get anxious despite the fact that in real life it would be the former situation being presented - hardly a fair metric is it.

 

[Proton Soup]

cortisol has some pretty significant effects on laying down and retrieval of memory. if you can mitigate this, it will alleviate much of your problem.

http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/stress.html#stressmemory

 

[BobG]

Yes, people can be bad test takers.

Tests usually aren't that great.

Ideally, an instructor designing a course would decide what the goals of the class were and then figure out how to tell whether or not the students had met the goal - in other words, the tests would be one of the first things developed and would be totally focused on the course goals.

In practice, many instructors have a course already built and the last thing they do is to create a test. Too often, the test is created by the instructor paging through the course, seeing something interesting, and excitedly thinking to themselves, "This would be a great test question!"

In other words, tests involve memory as well as learning.

If you really learn something, you'll probably know that material in any situation. If you have to memorize material, there's many things that can influence your abiltiy to recall things.

For one thing, it's easier to recall info in the same, or similar environment that you first memorized the item. If you study at night while listening to heavy metal and doing beer shots, it will be hard to recall the material in a classroom in the morning. (This is an easy experiment to do and I consistently got the same results every time I repeated this experiment.)

I'd say I was a bad test taker simply because I'm not that great at memorizing things (unless I write them down - that seems to imprint them permanently in my memory). I always did better on finals than midterms. If I learned it, I knew it for a long, long time. It was just hard to memorize a lot of the smaller details that wound up on midterm tests.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

For one thing, it's easier to recall info in the same, or similar environment that you first memorized the item. If you study at night while listening to heavy metal and doing beer shots, it will be hard to recall the material in a classroom in the morning. (This is an easy experiment to do and I consistently got the same results every time I repeated this experiment.)

My friend read about this in college, or that your mental state at the time you learn something can influence recall. He decided to run a little "experiment". Since he usually had a couple martinis while studying he started having a martini before class on exam days. He says he's not sure if it really helped or not.

 

[f95toli]

I don't believe that. If you can't do math problems in an isolated setting, how are you going to do them in "real life". I think only way that exams are a poor metric is in the fact that they do not, as they are usually applied, test long-test knowledge and congenial to cramming.

Because, as jarednjames has already mentioned, tests do not in any way represent how you actually use math(or physics) in real life.
I was always pretty bad at taking written tests when I was an undergrad, I would do well on projects, hand-in assignments and oral exams (where I was asked to explain something); but I always struggled a bit when I came to written exams. I think this was partly due to bad self-confidence but also because I've never been able to focus for 4 hours straight and got a bit stressed out by the time limit (I made a lot of silly mistakes).

If you are studying on your own or is solving problems that are part of your research there is nothing preventing you from taking a break and doing something else (e.g. writing this instead of analysing data in Matlab which is what I am doing at the moment) for a while, but you can't do that during an exam. Also, the "real" problems I work on now tend to take days or more to solve, so I am nowhere near as stressed out about solving them quickly as I was back then (about 15 years ago).

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm excellent at take home exams

 

[Synetos]

The problem of tests is the timelimit, usually you got a book and time and then you suddenly don't.

But I agree that prepaing does work.

 

[BobG]

The problem of tests is the timelimit, usually you got a book and time and then you suddenly don't.

But I agree that prepaing does work.

You can't be sure what grade you're pa ing for if you prepa .

(I assume it must be your ' ' ke that's malfunctioning since it's a common occurence and you alread used an 'r' in our post.)