Math Ability of Competitors

[syo_astro]

To those saying essentially "pft, trig is easy", bear in mind that experience (yours, friends) doesn't generalize to others well. As Name said there are 6th-8th graders that don't know trig (they'd probably find some trig questions on a test to be an annoying waste of time since they've never seen it). Even if you think something is easy or know 9th graders that know something, that hardly means the majority of middle schoolers know that thing.

I am trying to include waves in the test but I feel the easiest way to do that (for me) is through sinusoidal functions as I do not know much about actual waves to make a good question

One question on trig out of 60 or 70 probably won't make a huge difference anyway, just don't go overboard of course. You could also think about how often tiebreaking is an issue, it usually doesn't help grading to throw in many questions that only 2/25 teams could get even close to right. Though...If you're just including a question because you feel an urge to, you can always write extra questions and not include some in the test. It's not a bad thing to omit questions since you can just save them for another test. If you find it difficult enough with some "bonus hard" trig (which you're even having difficult with creating), then it might not even need the trig. This can also be figured out if you know someone who can edit your test, but I know it's hard to find editors, sigh...

As for people not knowing math (as drcubbin said)...don't know why that's surprising...math is a major weakness of US education >.> (@ "math is easy" people, take note). Anyway, fixing that goes wayyy beyond adding some trig or calc on scioly tests.

Edit (might as well be a second post, apologies):
Looking at the original post, I don't think it wasn't mentioned that every state has their own math standards by grade level, so at least that's something people can agree on. Now things get complicated. Relevant ones are on soinc: https://www.soinc.org/learn/alignment-n ... -standards. But if you're looking at that, that doesn't tell you much about the math side of things.

As everyone pointed out it'll likely be similar but different for every state (teachers would know better than me). You can figure out relevant math standards from Common Core (I think it's still used, right?: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/) or even better from a state site (e.g. NYS has http://www.nysed.gov/new-york-state-rev ... -standards). You can look at the many pages of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS - https://www.nextgenscience.org/) to see what's up with math in the sciences, but it's basically influenced by Common Core anyway: https://ngss.nsta.org/making-connection ... -core.aspx. But uh yeah, if you want a super clear answer to "what math is fair game", you can at most probably figure it out by grade and by state. Aside from that, students in lower grades probably don't know what those in higher grades know (generally that applies to trig from what I can tell while reading), and this all just depends on the intensity of competition you're working with. So there's no one "right" answer *shrug*.

NOW if you read all of this and say "in my opinion x is too easy or too hard"...well, you probably need to still go over everything in the links. Individual experiences don't necessarily chalk up to much in practice when you throw on a section of math nobody does because it's too hard! If you find that's a lot of effort (as I did), then to figure out how difficulty scales you can just ask friends for topics they'd find easy/hard (and don't judge them, just listen and appreciate!) or help others experienced in test writing to see what they do, write at invites or for low-stakes situations, etc. Probably practice like that is the best solution.

[TheCrazyChemist]

Saving Space I hope (Click to Show Hidden Text)

[quote="syo_astro"]To those saying essentially "pft, trig is easy", bear in mind that experience (yours, friends) doesn't generalize to others well. As Name said there are 6th-8th graders that don't know trig (they'd probably find some trig questions on a test to be an annoying waste of time since they've never seen it). Even if you think something is easy or know 9th graders that know something, that hardly means the 

As for people not knowing math (as drcubbin said)...don't know why that's surprising...math is a major weakness of US education >.> (@ "math is easy" people, take note). Anyway, fixing that goes wayyy beyond adding some trig or calc on scioly tests.

Edit (might as well be a second post, apologies): 
Looking at the original post, I don't think it wasn't mentioned that every state has their own math standards by grade level, so at least that's something people can agree on. Now things get complicated. Relevant ones are on soinc: https://www.soinc.org/learn/alignment-national-standards. But if you're looking at that, that doesn't tell you much about the math side of things.

As everyone pointed out it'll likely be similar but different for every state (teachers would know better than me). You can figure out relevant math standards from Common Core (I think it's still used, right?: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/) or even better from a state site (e.g. NYS has http://www.nysed.gov/new-york-state-revised-mathematics-learning-standards). You can look at the many pages of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS - https://www.nextgenscience.org/) to see what's up with math in the sciences, but it's basically influenced by Common Core anyway: https://ngss.nsta.org/making-connections-common-core.aspx. But uh yeah, if you want a super clear answer to "what math is fair game", you can at most probably figure it out by grade and by state. Aside from that, students in lower grades probably don't know what those in higher grades know (generally that applies to trig from what I can tell while reading), and this all just depends on the intensity of competition you're working with. So there's no one "right" answer *shrug*.

NOW if you read all of this and say "in my opinion x is too easy or too hard"...well, you probably need to still go over everything in the links. Individual experiences don't necessarily chalk up to much in practice when you throw on a section of math nobody does because it's too hard! If you find that's a lot of effort (as I did), then to figure out how difficulty scales you can just ask friends for topics they'd find easy/hard (and don't judge them, just listen and appreciate!) or help others experienced in test writing to see what they do, write at invites or for low-stakes situations, etc. Probably practice like that is the best solution.[/quote]

Wow. You could've written an essay on this. I took a look at the standards, and the seem about right for what my middle school did for people in regular math. The difference is that people is Scioly are generally not taking that math, usually they're either in high math or more accelerated (Geometry, Algebra 2 etc.). And after taking a look at the curriculum for NY and the Common Core, I would still say those are meant for kids who learn at a moderate to fast pace who simply just aren't passionate about math. I find that people who are passionate about science and who compete in Science Olympiad generally are also semi-passionate about math, or at least they understand that both subjects go hand in hand, especially with physics events. And even then at the Div. B level, almost all the math I encountered was plug and chug formulas. I can't speak for the lab events or astronomy events, but I do know that they still do have a lot of formulas, but I'm not sure how sophisticated the math. Basically what I'm saying is that the math is pretty easy at the Div. B level, and it would be nice to see it get a little bit harder. Obviously, the tests still need to be at a good level for 6th graders, but just using basic algebra can get kind of boring. Maybe some tests should include areas of shapes....

I am trying to include waves in the test but I feel the easiest way to do that (for me) is through sinusoidal functions as I do not know much about actual waves to make a good question

On a Dynamic Planet Div. B test, do you really need to throw in a sinusoidal function? If you really want to, then go ahead. I would consider that question as a tiebreaker because it's generally going to be above so many people's heads. But if you really just want to do a wave question, make it more theoretical rather that mathematical, so like blah blah blah blah blah, will the waves reach the object B or something.

[EastStroudsburg13]

Wow. You could've written an essay on this. I took a look at the standards, and the seem about right for what my middle school did for people in regular math. The difference is that people is Scioly are generally not taking that math, usually they're either in high math or more accelerated (Geometry, Algebra 2 etc.). And after taking a look at the curriculum for NY and the Common Core, I would still say those are meant for kids who learn at a moderate to fast pace who simply just aren't passionate about math. I find that people who are passionate about science and who compete in Science Olympiad generally are also semi-passionate about math, or at least they understand that both subjects go hand in hand, especially with physics events. And even then at the Div. B level, almost all the math I encountered was plug and chug formulas. I can't speak for the lab events or astronomy events, but I do know that they still do have a lot of formulas, but I'm not sure how sophisticated the math. Basically what I'm saying is that the math is pretty easy at the Div. B level, and it would be nice to see it get a little bit harder. Obviously, the tests still need to be at a good level for 6th graders, but just using basic algebra can get kind of boring. Maybe some tests should include areas of shapes....

You have to remember that not everyone in Scioly is operating at the same level of passion for science. The majority of kids who compete in NSO on a regional level are likely "kids who learn at a moderate to fast pace". If teams at this level (which again, makes up the vast majority of SO teams) are currently struggling with math, the solution is not to make the math more difficult. From what I've gathered here, it may behoove NSO to make math requirements more explicit in its rules, as this would benefit both test writers attempting to judge an appropriate difficulty level, and competitors attempting to prepare for their events. It would also allow them to adjust the level of math allowed for different levels of competition; i.e. not allowing trigonometry in Division B at the regional level, but allowing it at states and nationals (just as an example, not a recommendation).

[syo_astro]

The difference is that people is Scioly are generally not taking that math, usually they're either in high math or more accelerated (Geometry, Algebra 2 etc.). And after taking a look at the curriculum for NY and the Common Core, I would still say those are meant for kids who learn at a moderate to fast pace who simply just aren't passionate about math.

Is that mainly from your and your friends' experiences? I wasn't advanced in middle school. I took honors classes in HS, but I still knew some that weren't advanced in HS (for fun: some of those same people took higher level math than I did in college!). You might be right, but my point is I've never seen anything suggesting either way, so no I don't see that "competitors are advanced" is guaranteed. This leads into what I I think I mentioned like 2 or 3 times: "know your audience". Also, the point wasn't to look at NYS standards but your own state standards (obviously NYS is useless for your state). I'm from NYS so it's what I know. As far as I can tell, Common Core is more of a guide or "baseline" for states to build their curricula off of. Not really sure what you mean by "kids learn at a moderate to fast pace who aren't passionate about math"...but I mean yeah, lots I knew/know of into science aren't necessarily passionate about math? Even that's irrelevant, though, if I was writing for nats of course. Vice versa if writing for some less intense regs/states.

From what I've gathered here, it may behoove NSO to make math requirements more explicit in its rules, as this would benefit both test writers attempting to judge an appropriate difficulty level, and competitors attempting to prepare for their events. It would also allow them to adjust the level of math allowed for different levels of competition; i.e. not allowing trigonometry in Division B at the regional level, but allowing it at states and nationals (just as an example, not a recommendation).

That could actually make the math too strictly defined and confuse newer writers and competitors (if writers ignore that). Some test writers get very miffed when they're restricted with what they can ask. Part of the issue is that a lot of tournaments at the same level (say, States) can have very different compositions of teams, so "levels of competition" doesn't always work aside from maybe "Nats only" since it's just one. At most, I think you can put out general guidance like "no calc" or "no content higher than x grade level for this Division."

[TheCrazyChemist]

You have to remember that not everyone in Scioly is operating at the same level of passion for science. The majority of kids who compete in NSO on a regional level are likely "kids who learn at a moderate to fast pace". If teams at this level (which again, makes up the vast majority of SO teams) are currently struggling with math, the solution is not to make the math more difficult. From what I've gathered here, it may behoove NSO to make math requirements more explicit in its rules, as this would benefit both test writers attempting to judge an appropriate difficulty level, and competitors attempting to prepare for their events. It would also allow them to adjust the level of math allowed for different levels of competition; i.e. not allowing trigonometry in Division B at the regional level, but allowing it at states and nationals (just as an example, not a recommendation).

Actually, I like that idea. It really helped with studying for heredity this year and knowing how on topic the tests I took at invitationals were.

[Unome]

From what I've gathered here, it may behoove NSO to make math requirements more explicit in its rules, as this would benefit both test writers attempting to judge an appropriate difficulty level, and competitors attempting to prepare for their events. It would also allow them to adjust the level of math allowed for different levels of competition; i.e. not allowing trigonometry in Division B at the regional level, but allowing it at states and nationals (just as an example, not a recommendation).

That could actually make the math too strictly defined and confuse newer writers and competitors (if writers ignore that). Some test writers get very miffed when they're restricted with what they can ask. Part of the issue is that a lot of tournaments at the same level (say, States) can have very different compositions of teams, so "levels of competition" doesn't always work aside from maybe "Nats only" since it's just one. At most, I think you can put out general guidance like "no calc" or "no content higher than x grade level for this Division."

I'm in agreement here. I don't think differentiating content by different levels of competition is going to work out.

On the subject of math in general - SO is about content outside of the classroom. I see no inherent problem with writing questions involving math that students may not have seen in the classroom, only in writing questions, math or otherwise, that are too difficult for the target group of teams.

[EastStroudsburg13]

From what I've gathered here, it may behoove NSO to make math requirements more explicit in its rules, as this would benefit both test writers attempting to judge an appropriate difficulty level, and competitors attempting to prepare for their events. It would also allow them to adjust the level of math allowed for different levels of competition; i.e. not allowing trigonometry in Division B at the regional level, but allowing it at states and nationals (just as an example, not a recommendation).

That could actually make the math too strictly defined and confuse newer writers and competitors (if writers ignore that). Some test writers get very miffed when they're restricted with what they can ask. Part of the issue is that a lot of tournaments at the same level (say, States) can have very different compositions of teams, so "levels of competition" doesn't always work aside from maybe "Nats only" since it's just one. At most, I think you can put out general guidance like "no calc" or "no content higher than x grade level for this Division."

Perhaps, but I still think there's merit in at least having clearly defined "guidelines", if not requirements. As drcubbin pointed out, performance on math questions often falls far short of what is desired. As far as I can see, having at least some basic form of guidance for what competitors and writers should expect only makes things easier for everyone involved. And, if you recall, the example I gave was an example, not a recommendation. The actual implementation would require more thought and planning than a forum post thought experiment.

Also...

Some test writers get very miffed when they're restricted with what they can ask.

Yeah, if test writers can't deal with basic guidelines, they can cry me a river. (Jeez, am I getting cranky in my old age? )

[TheCrazyChemist]

Yeah, if test writers can't deal with basic guidelines, they can cry me a river. (Jeez, am I getting cranky in my old age? )

First of all, cranky test writers are no good for competitors. We want good tests, and so do most other people. Second, I don't think you're exactly old EastStroudsburg13....

[EastStroudsburg13]

Yeah, if test writers can't deal with basic guidelines, they can cry me a river. (Jeez, am I getting cranky in my old age? )

First of all, cranky test writers are no good for competitors. We want good tests, and so do most other people. Second, I don't think you're exactly old EastStroudsburg13....

Granted, but if implementing a simple math guideline can make test writers cranky, I have very little sympathy. There are plenty of test writers out there that will deal with it.

[syo_astro]

Yeah, if test writers can't deal with basic guidelines, they can cry me a river. (Jeez, am I getting cranky in my old age? )

First of all, cranky test writers are no good for competitors. We want good tests, and so do most other people. Second, I don't think you're exactly old EastStroudsburg13....

Granted, but if implementing a simple math guideline can make test writers cranky, I have very little sympathy. There are plenty of test writers out there that will deal with it.

I wrote that pretty quickly, so admittedly that specific part about being miffed or w/e was meh...at the same time, I'd still say:
1. Of course these things require more thought...so why not discuss "forum post thought experiments"? I more mean, why even bring it up then? If it's not appropriate for the thread, just chatting for fun, or just don't feel like it, eh, I get that w/e. Sometimes I just like to discuss things...
2. I mainly wanted to focus on newer writers, but I could be a bit more general. I mean, other guidelines exist like the legendary calculator one or sig figs...it could be another thing to add to the test writing guide here on scioly.org maybe, but I feel like soinc already has a ton of guidelines that many aren't even aware of. That's on top of already learning all about rules, FAQs, etc. People even have trouble following the rules, so...that's all I'm trying to say.