<p>Well, it was the physics teacher who said he was not concerned. He said she is “not in dire straits” and seems to understand the material. I replied that from our perspective, a “D” IS dire. </p>
<p>That said, this stuff is more typically a problem with non quantitative subjects. </p>
<p>In my opinion, a test should be written such that an expert in the subject would get an easy A. I recall a health teacher who used her own nicknames for anatomical parts. So, there’d be a matching exercise with phrases like “vacuum cleaner” on one side and you had to match it to correct body part on the other. Anyone want to venture a guess on what part that is? We also had a physics teacher who liked to call newtons, figs. Some kids actually got really confused on a standardized test because of that.</p>
<p>GFG–if your kid knows stuff and the teacher is unconcerned and the grade is a “D” then it’s definitely time for partial credit on exams and a bit of work on the teacher’s part to give a real grade and not just multiple choice “mark it wrong” malarkey.</p>
<p>All of this points to the much harder to grade “explain your answer” test as the best exam.</p>
<p>And butterfly is the obvious answer. Never seen a live jar lid flit around.
And atomic bomb is the only one blowing a ton of people off the planet.
These are so easy!</p>
<p>Depends on the purpose of the test and the philosophy of the teacher/test giver. </p>
<p>For some, the type of test proposed above wouldn’t do enough to separate the “real experts” with the ability to be “quick studies” and the adaptive critical thinking skills to use that knowledge to apply to novel/tricky situations from the rest. </p>
<p>In some educational/situational contexts, this is necessary. In others, it can make for an excessively cutthroat competitive environment.</p>
<p>What I mean, cobrat, is that a teacher should use standard terms and standard explanations–not his personal, idiosyncratic terms. It shouldn’t be that if you miss class one day, but study the material from the textbook, and learn all about the parts of the foot, let’s say, that you should get a question wrong because you didn’t know the teacher is calling the big toe an oompa-loompa. This stuff really happens.</p>
<p>So tell me, what part of the anatomy is a vacuum cleaner, and would a PhD in anatomy know that answer?</p>
<p>I also think that if a literature professor whose life work has been the Brontes, and who has written many analyses of Wuthering Heights, were to come to my D’s 9th grade English class and take their test on that novel, the professor should be able to get an A+. If not, there’s a problem.</p>
<p>Not necessarily if the lit prof taking the 9th grade test is the proponent/follower of a legitimately respected interpretation of Bronte’s Wuthering Heights in that academic field that’s diametrically opposed to that of the lit Prof’s. </p>
<p>I can imagine a similar situation in the field of Economics if a Econ Prof with a Keynesian perspective takes an exam written and designed with much biases/loaded terms by an Econ Prof/Teacher who’s a follower of Milton Friedman’s Chicago School or Ludwig Von Mises’ Austrian School.</p>
<p>Basically, one valuable skill students need to learn for school and life is to figure out what the teacher’s/Prof’s/supervisor’s/employer organization’s perspective, personality/idiosyncracies, and the mentality behind it in addition to learning the material. </p>
<p>This includes theories favored and disfavored by them. This isn’t necessarily to always suck up for the grade as learning and knowing such information could provide valuable strategies for dealing with and if one wants to dissent with their views…to devise plans to present a convincing counterargument.</p>