|
0 members (),
417
guests, and
45
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,207
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,207 |
Thanks for pointing out the garbling - I followed the link and got to Orthography is death. Elmer Fudd wikipedia.
Advertising 2 . Orginal Orthography site: SAT I have no idea what is going on, but apparently there is some version of wikipedia written entirely as if Elmer Fudd were speaking it... too bad DS15 is at summer camp - a quick google search didn't help me understand it at all. BTW - I think based on lucounu's past behavior, we can rule out deliberate garbling. Smiles, Grinity
Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1 |
The implementation of the "newer SAT reasoning test" seems to have been just a rename, at least at the time of the name change. From the encycwopedia: In 1993 de name was changed to SAT I: Reasoning Test (wif de wetters not standing for anyding) to distinguish it from de SAT II: Subject Tests.[34] This change was instituted because of sharp criticism and wongitudinaw studies showing dat de originaw meaning was no wonger accurate; de SAT did not accuratewy measure what it said it was measuring.[citation needed] In 2004, de roman numeraws on bof tests were dropped, and de SAT I was renamed de SAT Reasoning Test. Did the basic nature of the SAT change recently? Although the SAT has certainly had changes, I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that the IQ correlation results are invawwid because of the changes. What I was looking at was the 2005 update -- the time at which it became what is often referred to as the "new SAT." From the wiki article quoted above: 2005 changes:
In 2005, the test was changed again, largely in response to criticism by the University of California system.[30] Because of issues concerning ambiguous questions, especially analogies, certain types of questions were eliminated (the analogies from the verbal and quantitative comparisons from the Math section). The test was made marginally harder, as a corrective to the rising number of perfect scores. A new writing section, with an essay, based on the former SAT II Writing Subject Test, was added,[31] in part to increase the chances of closing the opening gap between the highest and midrange scores. Other factors included the desire to test the writing ability of each student; hence the essay. The New SAT (known as the SAT Reasoning Test) was first offered on March 12, 2005, after the last administration of the "old" SAT in January 2005. The research that correlates IQ with SAT scores was all looking at administrations of the test prior to the 2005 changes. My understanding was that things like the analogies, which were removed in 2005, were the parts that were the most g correlated on the SAT. I took a psychometrics class a few years back at a local university as well in which the professor, a psychometrician, said that the new SAT (2005 and later) was more similar to the ACT and no longer considered a test of aptitude or ability. A paper in the journal Intelligence (reference below) found that ACT scores were correlated 0.77 with a measure of g, so I think the ACT can be regarded as an IQ test. The authors write "It appears that ACT scores can be used to accurately predict IQ in the general population." They also write, "As discussed in the opening of this article, ACT, Inc. claims that the ACT is not an IQ test, but rather measures the preparedness of the test-taker for advanced education. Given the results of the current study, this statement is misleading. Colleges that use scores on the ACT and SAT for admission decisions are basing admissions partially on intelligence test results. Whether this is acceptable or efficient practice is beyond the scope of this article, but we argue that the testing companies have a responsibility to the public to accurately describe what these widely-used tests measure." The ACT and the College Board don't use the word "intelligence" in describing what their tests measure, because that immediately raises the question of why large differences exist between average test scores in various demographic groups. The obvious but non-PC answer is that the patterns are the same ones found in "official" IQ tests such as the WISC and Stanford-Binet. http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/koening2008.pdfACT and general cognitive ability Katherine A. Koenig ⁎, Meredith C. Frey, Douglas K. Detterman Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, United States Intelligence 36 (2008) 153�160 Received 1 July 2006; received in revised form 16 March 2007; accepted 27 March 2007 Available online 2 May 2007 Abstract Research on the SAT has shown a substantial correlation with measures of g such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Another widely administered test for college admission is the American College Test (ACT). Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, measures of g were derived from the ASVAB and correlated with ACT scores for 1075 participants. The resulting correlation was .77. The ACT also shows significant correlations with the SAT and several standard IQ tests. A more recent sample (N=149) consisting of ACT scores and the Raven's APM shows a correlation of .61 between Raven'sderived IQ scores and Composite ACT scores. It appears that ACT scores can be used to accurately predict IQ in the general population.
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 282
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 282 |
Back on the original thoughts, though, and despite the fact that prep is widely done and places kids who don't prep at a disadvantage, I still can't condone prepping. IMHO whether everyone else is doing it or not and whether the test is being misused or not, studying for a test that is being used as an ability test is not right. Do you have any thoughts about how to get around it? I feel very similarly, in part because I want to make sure that I have a clear sense of what the results do or don't mean. If I could go and spend time getting to know the kids my kids are clustered with, I would have some sense of whether or not they were appropriately clustered. Since I don't get to do that (not only because it isn't possible but because my kids would kill me  ), I have to rely somewhat on what test scores seem to show. I just don't know how to interpret the scores--and I have major concerns about how schools will interpret those scores--without knowing which students did or did not prep. I almost wish there was some kind of handicapping system like bowlers use  It would make it easier to match the right apples to the right oranges for instructional purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,207
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,207 |
Do you have any thoughts about how to get around it? I feel very similarly, in part because I want to make sure that I have a clear sense of what the results do or don't mean. If I could go and spend time getting to know the kids my kids are clustered with, I would have some sense of whether or not they were appropriately clustered. Gee, do you think the teachers could be taught to be good at noticing if kids were appropriately clustered? Or is it something that one has to have an unusually high IQ oneself to have that sense? I do think that grouping that focusing on current achievement is the answer. Don't stop the reading test when you get one grade above agelevel - keep going and actually check all the kids. Then group, across grade if nescessary. Same with Math, spelling, writing. It doesn't seem like such a big deal. Pretest before units and send the ones who already have it to the library for project work, or practice things that can be drilled on a computer. ((shrugs)) Grinity
Coaching available, at SchoolSuccessSolutions.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1 |
One of the more interesting ideas I've heard suggests looking at "x" percentage of each demographic tested. That makes sense to me, although the follow up would have to be differentiated with current achievement levels in mind. In my fantasy approach, schools identify and form several types of gifted clusters (each in a different classroom). In reality, your approach can become a racial quota system for admission to gifted programs (which I oppose), as described by Laura Vanderkam in the Gifted Exchange blog: http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2011/07/making-numbers-come-out-right.htmlMaking the Numbers Come Out Right ... In the New Haven district, school officials were concerned that too many white and Asian students were being identified as gifted (alternately, one could say that they were concerned that too few black and Latino children were identified as gifted, but these are really flip sides of the same coin). So they put the program on hold and revamped the process. Now, the percent of white students in the program has fallen from 15 percent to 10 percent, reflecting their total fourth-grade population of 9 percent. As the article notes, "Chinese students, who make up 7 percent of the population, used to be 23 percent of the GATE program. Now that number is 9 percent. The number of Vietnamese GATE students has dropped from 9 percent to 4 percent -- equal to their percentage of the total population." "The results are remarkable," Chief Academic Officer Wendy Gudalewicz told the Oakland Tribune. "The students that we identified as gifted and talented in this district represent the ethnic makeup of our student body." How did this magic happen? "The new process uses two ways to identify GATE students -- through academic achievement and using a checklist system to find students who are gifted and talented in other ways, such as creativity and leadership," according to the article. "The academic pathway gives students a numerical score based on their performance in reading and math and, for fourth-graders, language. Officials then identify the top 5 percent districtwide within each racial and ethnic subgroup in each of the academic areas, reviewing the results for proportional gender representation. The other pathway to the program is through a nomination process to identify students with unique learning styles, creative ability, leadership skills or artistic ability. These students must be nominated by two adults, at least one of whom must be employed at the student's school." In other words, the school district is setting out to make sure the proportions look right, and (shockingly) has achieved that. The whole thing is a bit farcical. I have no doubt that someone can be a gifted leader -- but this is the problem with making gifted programs a reward, or a pull-out with special classes, or field trips, or what have you. All kids can benefit from enriched classes. What academically gifted children need is accelerated academic work that challenges them to the extent of their abilities. It's not about being fun, or being recognized for being a good, creative kid. It's about giving someone the opportunity to do work that is hard enough that they really, truly could fail. I keep hoping that, over time, the world of gifted education will start moving that way. But then I read articles like this and realize how far we still have to go. <end of excerpt> The school district describes its GATE admission policy at http://www.nhusd.k12.ca.us/node/1546 .
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
We've gone the route of trying to get really high IQ teachers/gifted coordinators with the thought in mind, like Grinity mentions, that they'll be better able to distinguish the difference btwn truly gifted kids and high achievers and levels of giftedness. We opted to keep dd10 is a specific school last year despite the fact that she'd get more in some areas in another school b/c the first school had a highly intelligent GT teacher where the other one had a GT coordinator who struck me as of no more than average intelligence at best.
We've also done private testing rather than trying to game the CogAT which isn't the type of test that dd tends to ace although I totally understand that isn't a possibility due to cost for everyone. Right now it wouldn't be for us due to a lot of other big expenses that have come up, but we were fortunate to have been able to do so when we did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 833
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 833 |
Our district GT mentioned changes in the CogAT. Do you have any idea what they may be?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,917
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,917 |
Our district GT mentioned changes in the CogAT. Do you have any idea what they may be? I remember hearing something about there being online and Spanish versions coming, but I have no good source.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 282
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 282 |
One of the more interesting ideas I've heard suggests looking at "x" percentage of each demographic tested. That makes sense to me, although the follow up would have to be differentiated with current achievement levels in mind. In my fantasy approach, schools identify and form several types of gifted clusters (each in a different classroom). In reality, your approach can become a racial quota system for admission to gifted programs (which I oppose), as described by Laura Vanderkam in the Gifted Exchange blog: I can see how it could become that. I think the key is to cluster kids appropriately, not to take the top whatever percent in each group and jam them all together. In a good "program", not all identified students are grouped together recieving the same things anyway, because as we know, not all gifted children are the same. I find the idea interesting because I'm operating under the assumption that the highly race/class skewed scores we typically see do not represent a natural distribution of intelligence. Poverty, discrimination, language...these are all factors that can mask intelligence and talent. I think by looking at outliers within groups, we can better separate circumstance from intrinsic factors, and develop talent that would otherwise be overlooked. The programming itself will probably look different, at least initially. However, if identification of talent happens early on, there is opportunity to provide interventions that might overcome some of the factors that depress the test scores in underrepresented populations. I'm also operating under the assumption that the kids we are talking about range from mildly to highly gifted (based on what I've read, group ability tests like CogAT aren't likely to capture profoundly gifted students accurately), so all identified kids shouldn't be recieving the same follow up services/instruction/intervention anyway. Part of the reason I would like more context with the scores (prepped,not prepped, etc) is to make more appropriate clustering decisions within the wider swath of kids who are on the gifted continuum. I recognize that there are brain development factors related to pre-natal care and birth to three brain development that are likely to create some skewing of intelligence. I simply don't accept that it skews it to the degree that our school based identification patterns suggest. I don't see entry into a gifted program as a prize, and I don't particularly like the concept of "program" to begin with. Rather, I see a need to make sure that all gifted kids have access to programming that meets their specific needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,694
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,694 |
We opted to keep dd10 is a specific school last year despite the fact that she'd get more in some areas in another school b/c the first school had a highly intelligent GT teacher where the other one had a GT coordinator who struck me as of no more than average intelligence at best. This is something I have wondered about a few times... Does it matter if the gifted ed teacher is not very gifted? I suspect the gifted ed teacher at our school thinks gifted children are wonderful and genuinely wants to help them do well, but I don't know that she "gets" it. I heard her say recently that she went to primary school with a well known PG child (you would all know the PG child in question but I don't want to reveal enough to identify her/myself/our school) and it makes me wonder how much her career path was influenced by growing up seeing someone so out there and being impressed and wanting to be near that. Does that make sense? More of a fan than a guide...
|
|
|
|
|
