In fact, the algorithms that ALEKS implements do IME do a pretty good job of accounting for scope and sequence mismatches, if you let them.
I think we're having this discussion because they don't do such a great job. My son took the initial assessment, and theoretically was let out of learning what he already knows, and yet you've correctly noted that a lot of what he's doing is probably too easy for him. This is a waste of his time.
Because the main reason for the interim assessements, as opposed to the regular ones, is to cement what's been recently learned. These are the great bulk of questions on them, perhaps the entirety-- they're more quizzes than level-setting assessments like the initial bigger one.
I think this description is misleading, perhaps indicating that you've been misled.
Maybe, but I don't think so.
http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks"As a student works through a course, ALEKS periodically reassesses the student to ensure that topics learned are also retained."
This was explained as a primary use for the interim assessments, by two different support people. It's also what I've seen and what my son reports. It's a key part of the system to incorporate review; this is a good feature of any traditional math curriculum as well, except that when you use a traditional curriculum you can compact (skip excessive review). It's not the exploration of readiness for new concepts that I'm against, but the extremely frequent review that can't easily be bypassed, when the main selling point of the system was essentially the easy ability to use compacting.
The description for the initial assessment also claims that it provides an overview of everything the student does and doesn't know. If so, and it's accurate, the only deviations as the student progress should be based on learning things without needing ALEKS instruction (during coverage of similar topics or outside of ALEKS), or losing mastery. If the former, I'd still want to have him test out of the block of material by the same sort of coverage as when he encounters a supposedly unknown topic and quickly masters it. The latter doesn't happen.
The most sensible way to conduct curriculum compacting is to administer a pretest-- which is essentially done in ALEKS by coverage of the subtopic itself after it's assigned, if not during the initial assessment-- and let a student test out. This is completely separate from review. Review is not antithetical to compacting, but it's the review with which I find fault in ALEKS.
The system was implemented to give fairly continual review, in addition to its other facets, based on assumptions made about how children learn. The review doesn't seem to be customizable or adaptable enough to avoid wasting a bit of time for a child who moves quickly and with higher retention than normal. It's not the end of the world, just suboptimal for my son.
I think it's a good point that someone might fill in gaps by working on related topics, and to that extent it is useful to have a reassessment every so often. Every day, with review of just-mastered content mixed in, shouldn't be necessary.
One obvious way they could improve this is by splitting out the review questions from assessments designed to allow compacting, and allowing one to skip the review, or allowing one to configure the amount of review. It's the review of recently covered topics that is most boring, not so much getting assessed on something not yet covered by ALEKS even if known.
But really, an assessment will only ever ask one question per topic, at a maximum, unless the child is making mistakes. There seems to be an inconsistency between you saying that that's too much review and you wondering whether he's getting enough practice - which is your main concern?
As one goes through a curriculum one will cover many sub-topics. Even at one periodically presented question on each previously covered subtopic, the number of unnecessary review questions may grow to be large. No matter how they're spaced out, the total minimum review burden for each subtopic doesn't seem to be adaptable enough to different students-- I doubt that ALEKS only asks one review question, ever, on a subtopic without revisiting it periodically. I'm not worried about there being an interesting or varied mix of review; I'm worried about there being a such a high overall proportion of review, based on the needs of ordinary students, that it wastes time for higher-spectrum students. I simply don't want time wasted on review every day.
Although I'm a little disconcerted by the speed with which ALEKS initially determines mastery, I could live with it as long as my son continues to plow ahead without difficulty. But if mastery is attained, he doesn't need such frequent review. I'm not worried about him getting enough practice on topics previously mastered through ALEKS-- that's what mastery means to me, that one need not revisit it for quite some time and can move on. He doesn't like being forced to redo things he has done already. I'm just trying to use ALEKS to make sure he's solid before moving on to the next grade; in a sense, except for the hole-plugging concern, I'm using it with the intent that he do minimal review. This mismatch with the common use might be part of the problem, but it would be easy to get around if the system were more flexible. It ought to allow for this sort of use, since it's not good as a primary learning resource.
Have you actually watched him doing the assessments? Is it possible that, being 6, he's actually making slips that are causing the system to ask him repeated questions on the same topics?
I have in the past, though I get the assessments cancelled now. He made only very infrequent errors on review questions, but he still got plenty of them.
