Page 5 of 5
Re: Test writing
Posted: April 19th, 2020, 1:11 pm
by BennyTheJett
I didn't get hours for writing my tests, but I did get hours if I event supervised my test.
Re: Test writing
Posted: April 20th, 2020, 7:23 am
by gz839918
MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑April 19th, 2020, 10:04 am
Hey everyone,
I was thinking about writing some tests in my region, but since I need some volunteer hours for National Honors Society, if I log my hours apporpriately, do you guys think I can get volunteer hours from test writing? Thanks!
You should ask your school's NHS chapter about whether they will accept hours for writing. I've received volunteer hours before by writing code, but I'm certain some organizations wouldn't view coding as "real" volunteer work. The same is almost certainly true of testing writing, and the decision of what counts and what doesn't count is in the hands of your NHS chapter.
Re: Test writing
Posted: August 10th, 2020, 6:59 am
by drcubbin
syo_astro wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 9:43 pm
drcubbin wrote:As a possible solution, I offer this - If those who write the rules would expand the topics to make the materials more challenging. Maybe "balancing simple equations" could be come just, "balancing equations", or in the chemistry events, why not specify we can include that stoichiometry (nothing more than learning conversion units) or molarity (concentration of a solution)be permitted or make the periodic table a better part of the rules? If there was more to work with, test writers would be better able to modify and alter questions from one test to the other and it would be more challenging. Unfortunately, I do see a trend to making the test writing "parameters" simpler, and so it makes tests more simpler and more similar. Test writers are the glue of the events. Give them more to work with and you would have better - and more diverse - tests.
Huh, are rules writers trying to make test writing focus on only simpler topics? I haven't been writing / checking enough events recently...but that would be unfortunate vs. the usual "simple but open" philosophy that I knew rules writers to have (like simple rules but very wide reach of topics they cover). Like, I thought everyone just knew that good rules enable both easy and hard tests >.>. The only issue is adding rules with "buts" can be bad...so idk, depends on the event.
Thanks Syo Astro! I think my post came from the frustration of having a couple of the coaches complain about my using similar formats at a variety of venues. I also believe my comment was about one of the rules parameters regarding the 2019 rules and that balancing "simple" questions rule. The word "simple" excludes testing of some very challenging - yet completely doable - problems. And stoichiometry? What is a "chemistry" event without a little factor label methodology?
