Scioly.org

alisulmoh wrote:Yeah we kinda just peered at screens for any obvious signs of web browser activity. Just felt that doing an actual airplane mode check would be too intrusive. What would you suggest be done next time?

Why not? I always go around asking students to point out to me/another proctor that they're not using internet at the start of the event. It only takes a second, and it's like...the one thing they can mess up with using a computer. Nobody seems to mind (most seem ready to point it out).

But yeah, usually it's easy to glance and tell worst case. I'm often more worried about someone trying to mess around on their phone or talking to others...

alisulmoh wrote:

poptrop459 wrote:
Astro: Again, this was really good. Questions on the exam were doable and long enough to ensure that the best teams would be able to finish on time. The ES made the hardest math question (Tulley-Fisher) doable by splitting the question into multiple parts, which I appreciated. One thing I noticed was that the supervisors never checked our computers for airplane mode. I'm not sure if they just forgot us, or just didn't check anybody's computer during the event (or maybe I just missed them as they walked by, lol). I feel like the majority of the teams would follow the honor code, so it's not that big of a deal. - 9.0/10

thanks for the feedback. Yeah we kinda just peered at screens for any obvious signs of web browser activity. Just felt that doing an actual airplane mode check would be too intrusive. What would you suggest be done next time?
(Astro ES)

It’s not easy, so I’m just going to throw out some ideas. Maybe checking for airplane mode in the beginning? Taking the time to check for airplane mode once, even if it's only in the beginning, might be enough to scare teams planning on cheating.

The auditorium setup probably made it harder for you guys to see our screens. If its something under your control, maybe try a room where everyone sits level? This might make it easier to see everyone at once, so you guys could stay more or less in the same area for the entire exam. Walking around can give teams opportunities to look something up when a supervisor is the other side of the room, but staying in one place and being able to see everyone's screens makes it more difficult to cheat.

Another strategy could be to seat teams a tiny bit closer - not too close that they can easily see each others screens or hear what others teams are whispering, but enough to make cheating appear riskier. Again, this would also make it easier to see everyone’s screen at once. The right distance would be tough to figure out though.

I talked to my partner, who was a bit more aware of his surroundings during the test, and he said you guys did a better job than most supervisors at other invitationals when checking screens. I wouldn’t worry too much about it - just maintain the same test quality you guys had, and Astro should continue to run smoothly.

meilingkuo wrote: Hi, I am not in your area, but have a general question on fossils. Since you wrote a fossils test, I am wondering where you get the information on temporal range of fossils for the answer key and what is considered main resource for regional/state/national test. We checked several resources and noticed that the range varies from source to source. We consulted a paleontologist and was told that fossilworks database is what scientists in the field use. However, we noticed that answer keys for lots of old test packets are not based on fossilworks database. Our regional is near and we really need to find out.

For the temporal range of fossils, we googled the specific fossil and multiple different websites gave a pretty similar range. Wikipedia was the easiest to find as it had temporal ranges for nearly every fossil on the list, and we fact-checked it with other websites. This probably wasn't the most accurate way we could have done it but we weren't aware the fossilworks database existed. Thanks for letting me know so next year I can fix that!

Hey so I was just looking over my Circuit Lab test from this invitational and there was a question that asked for the definition of a transformer. I put "A transformer is a device that transfers electrical energy between two or more circuits." This is the exact definition that was in my binder and that is the first thing that comes up when you search a transformer as well. I got this question marked wrong as well as the follow up question which I believe I actually got correct as well. Is my definition correct or am I just crazy?
Thanks.

poptrop459 wrote: Circuit Lab: Holy crap, this one was rough. None of the material on the test was particularly difficult, but the two labs (both of which were tougher than any other I've ever seen) ensured that each team pairing would be split for a big chunk of the time given. My partner and I managed to place 4th in the event, but we walked out feeling like we had bombed since we had run out of time and a lot of the exam blank or with random answers. I personally ended up liking the test itself - it tested on a lot of stuff that's in the rules, but not typically taught in high school classes, ensuring that the highest ranking teams were made up of people who spent time learning the extra stuff instead of just relying on what they learned in school (don't get me wrong, that's still useful!). 8.5/10

Hey just for comparison, how many points did you get on the Circuit Lab test that placed you fourth, I did pretty bad and still managed to get around 20th. Thanks.

bryan,boyd wrote:

poptrop459 wrote: Circuit Lab: Holy crap, this one was rough. None of the material on the test was particularly difficult, but the two labs (both of which were tougher than any other I've ever seen) ensured that each team pairing would be split for a big chunk of the time given. My partner and I managed to place 4th in the event, but we walked out feeling like we had bombed since we had run out of time and a lot of the exam blank or with random answers. I personally ended up liking the test itself - it tested on a lot of stuff that's in the rules, but not typically taught in high school classes, ensuring that the highest ranking teams were made up of people who spent time learning the extra stuff instead of just relying on what they learned in school (don't get me wrong, that's still useful!). 8.5/10

Hey just for comparison, how many points did you get on the Circuit Lab test that placed you fourth, I did pretty bad and still managed to get around 20th. Thanks.

We got around 67-68 points for the entire test and lab portion, way higher than we expected. Our B team placed 11th, and scored in the mid-30s range.

Regarding the transformer problem, your definition was the exact same as the one in my binder, but I'm pretty sure its too vague and misses the actual point of a transformer. I was considering writing it down, but I remembered that a more specific purpose of a transformer is to step up or step down the potential difference that comes with AC current, so I wrote that down, and got credit. The best definition on the internet that I can find is "A transformer is a device that changes (transforms) and alternating potential difference (voltage) from one value to another value be it smaller or greater using the principle of electromagnetic induction."

poptrop459 wrote:

bryan,boyd wrote:

poptrop459 wrote: Circuit Lab: Holy crap, this one was rough. None of the material on the test was particularly difficult, but the two labs (both of which were tougher than any other I've ever seen) ensured that each team pairing would be split for a big chunk of the time given. My partner and I managed to place 4th in the event, but we walked out feeling like we had bombed since we had run out of time and a lot of the exam blank or with random answers. I personally ended up liking the test itself - it tested on a lot of stuff that's in the rules, but not typically taught in high school classes, ensuring that the highest ranking teams were made up of people who spent time learning the extra stuff instead of just relying on what they learned in school (don't get me wrong, that's still useful!). 8.5/10

Hey just for comparison, how many points did you get on the Circuit Lab test that placed you fourth, I did pretty bad and still managed to get around 20th. Thanks.

We got around 67-68 points for the entire test and lab portion, way higher than we expected. Our B team placed 11th, and scored in the mid-30s range.

Regarding the transformer problem, your definition was the exact same as the one in my binder, but I'm pretty sure its too vague and misses the actual point of a transformer. I was considering writing it down, but I remembered that a more specific purpose of a transformer is to step up or step down the potential difference that comes with AC current, so I wrote that down, and got credit. The best definition on the internet that I can find is "A transformer is a device that changes (transforms) and alternating potential difference (voltage) from one value to another value be it smaller or greater using the principle of electromagnetic induction."

Okay yea I guess i’ll have to be more specific for stages. Thanks for the help!

poptrop459 wrote:It’s not easy, so I’m just going to throw out some ideas. Maybe checking for airplane mode in the beginning? Taking the time to check for airplane mode once, even if it's only in the beginning, might be enough to scare teams planning on cheating.

The auditorium setup probably made it harder for you guys to see our screens. If its something under your control, maybe try a room where everyone sits level? This might make it easier to see everyone at once, so you guys could stay more or less in the same area for the entire exam. Walking around can give teams opportunities to look something up when a supervisor is the other side of the room, but staying in one place and being able to see everyone's screens makes it more difficult to cheat.

Another strategy could be to seat teams a tiny bit closer - not too close that they can easily see each others screens or hear what others teams are whispering, but enough to make cheating appear riskier. Again, this would also make it easier to see everyone’s screen at once. The right distance would be tough to figure out though.

I talked to my partner, who was a bit more aware of his surroundings during the test, and he said you guys did a better job than most supervisors at other invitationals when checking screens. I wouldn’t worry too much about it - just maintain the same test quality you guys had, and Astro should continue to run smoothly.

I'm not sure that cheating is a gigantic concern at invitationals and I think you're overthinking this - I've encountered two reported cases of suspected cheating on my team's behalf. One of them turned out to be completely baseless, and another one was because our people did so well NJSO thought the proctor (one of our HS teachers) had passed on the exam key to our competitors.

There's really not much incentive to cheat, and certainly not among most of the schools I've competed with and against. A simple check once at the beginning and occasional monitoring should be sufficient.

whythelongface wrote:

poptrop459 wrote:It’s not easy, so I’m just going to throw out some ideas. Maybe checking for airplane mode in the beginning? Taking the time to check for airplane mode once, even if it's only in the beginning, might be enough to scare teams planning on cheating.

The auditorium setup probably made it harder for you guys to see our screens. If its something under your control, maybe try a room where everyone sits level? This might make it easier to see everyone at once, so you guys could stay more or less in the same area for the entire exam. Walking around can give teams opportunities to look something up when a supervisor is the other side of the room, but staying in one place and being able to see everyone's screens makes it more difficult to cheat.

Another strategy could be to seat teams a tiny bit closer - not too close that they can easily see each others screens or hear what others teams are whispering, but enough to make cheating appear riskier. Again, this would also make it easier to see everyone’s screen at once. The right distance would be tough to figure out though.

I talked to my partner, who was a bit more aware of his surroundings during the test, and he said you guys did a better job than most supervisors at other invitationals when checking screens. I wouldn’t worry too much about it - just maintain the same test quality you guys had, and Astro should continue to run smoothly.

I'm not sure that cheating is a gigantic concern at invitationals and I think you're overthinking this - I've encountered two reported cases of suspected cheating on my team's behalf. One of them turned out to be completely baseless, and another one was because our people did so well NJSO thought the proctor (one of our HS teachers) had passed on the exam key to our competitors.

There's really not much incentive to cheat, and certainly not among most of the schools I've competed with and against. A simple check once at the beginning and occasional monitoring should be sufficient.

Yeah, I agree. Like I said earlier, it's shouldn't really be a big problem. Just throwing out some ideas.

bryan,boyd wrote:

poptrop459 wrote:

bryan,boyd wrote: Hey just for comparison, how many points did you get on the Circuit Lab test that placed you fourth, I did pretty bad and still managed to get around 20th. Thanks.

We got around 67-68 points for the entire test and lab portion, way higher than we expected. Our B team placed 11th, and scored in the mid-30s range.

Regarding the transformer problem, your definition was the exact same as the one in my binder, but I'm pretty sure its too vague and misses the actual point of a transformer. I was considering writing it down, but I remembered that a more specific purpose of a transformer is to step up or step down the potential difference that comes with AC current, so I wrote that down, and got credit. The best definition on the internet that I can find is "A transformer is a device that changes (transforms) and alternating potential difference (voltage) from one value to another value be it smaller or greater using the principle of electromagnetic induction."

Okay yea I guess i’ll have to be more specific for stages. Thanks for the help!

Hey, I just checked, and we didn't get 67/100 for the Circuit Lab test. I didn't have the cover page, and didn't realize that the sections were weighted, so I just added up all of our points. Our actual scores was in the mid-forties. Sorry!