Most readers of this blog know the 2008 iTest will be starting in a matter of days, and have already registered. Good luck to you - you'll need it!
After reviewing the draft copy of the exam, I believe this will be our best iTest yet. Congratulations to Mathew and his staff for a job very well done in preparing an exam that pushes the boundaries of what is possible with a math competition.
The iTest's advertising this year is entirely online and centered around Facebook. With its highly-targeted marketing program, the iTest will be able to reach out to high school students themselves instead of our educator-oriented mailings of years past. We'll see how this different approach works this year and tweak as necessary moving forward.
The iTest organization is also ready to announce it's first major expansion: The iTest Debate. This event will debut in February 2009, and more details will be made available in October of this year.
So if you haven't registered for the 2008 iTest yet, go to www.theitest.com and get it done! September 10 will be here soon. Good luck!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
2008 iTest Changes
In 2008, the iTest continues to evolve. The format changes once again for the 2008 iTest, but this change may prove permanent if successful.
First, the iTest aims to be as inclusive as possible, providing opportunities for a very broad array of students to compete in a national math competition. For this reason, we are expanding the total number of problems, including more problems at the easier end of the spectrum, as well as more at the approximate level of the AMC 10 and AMC 12 exams.
The harder end of the test will remain similar to the recent past, but the proof problems will disappear. Tie breaking will be time-based.
Many of the 100 problems on the 2008 iTest will involve a storyline that will provide various forms of context for many of the problems. We believe this approach will provide a unique opportunity to educate certain types of learners in addition to making the contest more enjoyable.
Additionally, teams from multiple states will be disallowed. We believe the contest to be more beneficial to more students, and more interesting as a competition with MOP dream teams essentially disallowed. This also prevents the need for a red queen race between increasingly more knowledgeable MOSPers and problem writers who often spend 10-12 hours crafting a single problem to challenge the best and brightest students. Added time pressure should also prevent the need for more than a few difficult-to-write olympiad level problems.
We believe the iTest loses nothing, and gains significantly with these changes, and that the 2008 iTest will be the most enjoyable of the iTest competitions to date.
We thank Zach Abel and Adam Hesterberg for their continued contributions to the test-writing process.
We also thank the Southern Company for providing generous support, enabling us to improve and expand the iTest.
First, the iTest aims to be as inclusive as possible, providing opportunities for a very broad array of students to compete in a national math competition. For this reason, we are expanding the total number of problems, including more problems at the easier end of the spectrum, as well as more at the approximate level of the AMC 10 and AMC 12 exams.
The harder end of the test will remain similar to the recent past, but the proof problems will disappear. Tie breaking will be time-based.
Many of the 100 problems on the 2008 iTest will involve a storyline that will provide various forms of context for many of the problems. We believe this approach will provide a unique opportunity to educate certain types of learners in addition to making the contest more enjoyable.
Additionally, teams from multiple states will be disallowed. We believe the contest to be more beneficial to more students, and more interesting as a competition with MOP dream teams essentially disallowed. This also prevents the need for a red queen race between increasingly more knowledgeable MOSPers and problem writers who often spend 10-12 hours crafting a single problem to challenge the best and brightest students. Added time pressure should also prevent the need for more than a few difficult-to-write olympiad level problems.
We believe the iTest loses nothing, and gains significantly with these changes, and that the 2008 iTest will be the most enjoyable of the iTest competitions to date.
We thank Zach Abel and Adam Hesterberg for their continued contributions to the test-writing process.
We also thank the Southern Company for providing generous support, enabling us to improve and expand the iTest.
Friday, March 28, 2008
iTest TOC Statistics -- First Two Rounds
I just got done reviewing statistics for the first couple of rounds of the 2008 iTest TOC. At first, I just wanted to look through them for the fun of it, but as soon as I did it occurred to me that I should take the opportunity to think about how hard the problems are for each round's competitors. This helps me know how hard to craft future problems.
Similarly to last year, I wrote nearly all the problems for the first three rounds (unlike last year, I split duties with Adam Hesterberg and Zach Abel for the last three rounds -- just the three hard geometry problems were due to Zach last year). The problems are intended to be AIME level during the first three rounds -- mostly mid to hard AIME level given that students do have several days to work, but are also challenged for speed. I am always interested in feedback on the problems in order to improve the competition.
While they are difficult to write, my hope is to continue to include a few puzzle problems. I have always enjoyed them more than most other problem types, and they are a little more rare in American mathematics competitions. A competition like this one may simple be a better venue for them than most.
Statistics -- Rounds 1 and 2
Judging from the statistics, the problems have been at an appropriate level. Only six students have answered all ten correctly during the first two rounds. One of those, In Young Cho, has been defeated in Round 2 due to superior time performance by Jeffrey Chen. Congratulations to Cho on a nice performance.
Edit: Justin Kopinsky also correctly answer all 10 problems, making 7 students total. But like Cho, Kopinsky was defeated in Round 2, with Jeremy Hahn solving all five problems in less time. Perhaps Hahn wants to keep the TOC championship at East Chapel Hill (2007 iTest TOC champion Arnav Tripathy graduated from East Chapel Hill).
One surprise to me is that Round 2 problem 4 was the easiest of the round. Out of the 26 students to submit answers, nobody missed it, while five and six students respectively missed problems 1 and 3.
Problem 5 was the hardest on both rounds so far, which is not a big surprise. But I don't believe this was the case last year.
Of the students who submitted problems during the first two rounds, average scores in both rounds were between 17 and 18 points. I didn't really have a goal for that average score, but I feel like these scores suggest that the problems are at a reasonable level of difficulty. It's also probably true that these averages are mildly inflated given that a few students in each round did not submit scores. While in some cases this may reflect that a student simply did not have time to compete or chose to pursue other priorities, it is also likely that a few students did not submit scores in anticipation of defeat, meaning they failed to solve at least one of the problems.
I doubt Round 1 will ever have full participation for this reason, though it's nice to see that over the past couple of years, participation in later rounds has been nearly full.
So, in total, there were five perfect scorers in the "Sweet 16". I'll try to report back as the contest progresses.
Please let us know what you think about the problems in terms of difficulty and topic spread.
Similarly to last year, I wrote nearly all the problems for the first three rounds (unlike last year, I split duties with Adam Hesterberg and Zach Abel for the last three rounds -- just the three hard geometry problems were due to Zach last year). The problems are intended to be AIME level during the first three rounds -- mostly mid to hard AIME level given that students do have several days to work, but are also challenged for speed. I am always interested in feedback on the problems in order to improve the competition.
While they are difficult to write, my hope is to continue to include a few puzzle problems. I have always enjoyed them more than most other problem types, and they are a little more rare in American mathematics competitions. A competition like this one may simple be a better venue for them than most.
Statistics -- Rounds 1 and 2
Judging from the statistics, the problems have been at an appropriate level. Only six students have answered all ten correctly during the first two rounds. One of those, In Young Cho, has been defeated in Round 2 due to superior time performance by Jeffrey Chen. Congratulations to Cho on a nice performance.
Edit: Justin Kopinsky also correctly answer all 10 problems, making 7 students total. But like Cho, Kopinsky was defeated in Round 2, with Jeremy Hahn solving all five problems in less time. Perhaps Hahn wants to keep the TOC championship at East Chapel Hill (2007 iTest TOC champion Arnav Tripathy graduated from East Chapel Hill).
One surprise to me is that Round 2 problem 4 was the easiest of the round. Out of the 26 students to submit answers, nobody missed it, while five and six students respectively missed problems 1 and 3.
Problem 5 was the hardest on both rounds so far, which is not a big surprise. But I don't believe this was the case last year.
Of the students who submitted problems during the first two rounds, average scores in both rounds were between 17 and 18 points. I didn't really have a goal for that average score, but I feel like these scores suggest that the problems are at a reasonable level of difficulty. It's also probably true that these averages are mildly inflated given that a few students in each round did not submit scores. While in some cases this may reflect that a student simply did not have time to compete or chose to pursue other priorities, it is also likely that a few students did not submit scores in anticipation of defeat, meaning they failed to solve at least one of the problems.
I doubt Round 1 will ever have full participation for this reason, though it's nice to see that over the past couple of years, participation in later rounds has been nearly full.
So, in total, there were five perfect scorers in the "Sweet 16". I'll try to report back as the contest progresses.
Please let us know what you think about the problems in terms of difficulty and topic spread.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
New Blog
Building my own new blog (here) has spurred me to display my thoughts more freely on the internet once again. I hadn't posted here much at all, but I will probably cross-post some now that I am writing.
I hope students are enjoying the 2008 iTest TOC problems as much as I have enjoyed crafting solutions to them. It is not an easy task to put together a competition with problems as hard as these must be, but it's worth it. I believe there are students exploring new concepts at each level of the competition, and even more enjoying the test of their problem solving skills.
With Round 4 beginning next week, now we get to see who can wrangle Zach Abel's geometry beasts, and the rest of the problems as well.
I hope students are enjoying the 2008 iTest TOC problems as much as I have enjoyed crafting solutions to them. It is not an easy task to put together a competition with problems as hard as these must be, but it's worth it. I believe there are students exploring new concepts at each level of the competition, and even more enjoying the test of their problem solving skills.
With Round 4 beginning next week, now we get to see who can wrangle Zach Abel's geometry beasts, and the rest of the problems as well.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Tournament of Champions Round 1 Underway
Round 1 of the 2008 iTest Tournament of Champions is well underway, with the initial set of questions being released yesterday and posted on the iTest homepage.
This year's set of contestants are extremely talented and it should be a brutal fight to determine this year's National Champion. Of course, we're also very excited about our testwriting team, led by Mathew Crawford.
Should be another very exciting year of competition. Looking forward to seeing what upsets and breakout performances we have in our opening round!
This year's set of contestants are extremely talented and it should be a brutal fight to determine this year's National Champion. Of course, we're also very excited about our testwriting team, led by Mathew Crawford.
Should be another very exciting year of competition. Looking forward to seeing what upsets and breakout performances we have in our opening round!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
iTest TOC
The first three rounds of the 2008 iTest TOC are nearly polished, and the last three rounds are not far from complete as well. The problems are a little harder this year than last, as I expect the greater participation by top students in the 2007 iTest to carry over into the TOC. This is part of the reason I asked Adam Hesterberg to join the iTest writing staff. He and Zach Abel have each contributed three problems to the mix, and the overall level of difficult is a step up. As usual, we ask Zach to write the hardest geometry problems, which are always impressive. I have been impressed as well with Adam's creativity. His problems are great, and different from what students usually see on contests.
I know the entire iTest staff is excited and interested to see how many students are able to solve all the problems at each level.
I know the entire iTest staff is excited and interested to see how many students are able to solve all the problems at each level.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
City kids' math, reading scores lag (taken from Associated Press)
Now that the iTest has established itself within the core "math competition" high school demographic, deeper market penetration into harder-to-reach schools with no strong math culture in place. As the article below indicates, these are the schools that can most benefit from the iTest organization.
City kids' math, reading scores lag
Gains made, but not as much as rest of U.S. grade school students
Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - Students in selected city schools are making modest gains on math and reading tests, but they continue to lag their counterparts nationwide, scores released Thursday show.
Eleven urban school districts volunteered to have their students take the tests and be compared with students across the country. The districts were: Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Boston; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Cleveland; Houston; Los Angeles; New York; San Diego; and Washington. Generally, the students in the urban districts scored lower, on average, than the nation. Only Austin and Charlotte posted average scores that mirrored public schools nationally or were higher in some cases.
The city school districts have higher concentrations of minority and low-income students than schools nationwide. Students from these groups tend to score lower on achievement tests than others.
A goal of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law is to reduce achievement gaps between minority and white students and low-income kids and their wealthier peers.
Tests have staff consequences
The law is mainly focused on reading and math and requires schools to test students annually in those subjects and face consequences for missing testing benchmarks. The consequences include, but aren't limited to, having to replace teachers or principals.
Schools have to report test scores by subgroups of students and must show progress is being made. All kids are supposed to be working at grade level by 2014.
Atlanta and Washington were the only districts to see their scores rise significantly over the past two years on the fourth- and eighth-grade reading tests as well as the math tests for both grades.
Both districts, particularly Washington, excluded more kids with limited English skills and disabilities from some tests this year. They weren't alone in taking that action, which can sometimes lead to higher test scores.
Atlanta school superintendent Beverly Hall attributed her district's progress to high-quality professional development for teachers, the recruitment of strong principals, and more time devoted to reading and math.
"If students are taught well, they will learn," Hall said. "I don't think it's rocket science. I don't think there's any quick fix."
Scores from 'Nation's report card'
The scores are from the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test given nationwide periodically on a range of subjects. Known as "the nation's report card," it is considered the best way to compare student achievement across state and district lines.
Math and reading scores released in September for students nationally showed students overall are improving steadily in math but making slower progress in reading.
"These urban districts pretty well mimic the nation," said Darvin Winick, chair of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the tests. "Reading is up. Math is up more."
More specifically, the results show:
Atlanta, Boston, New York and Washington posted higher fourth-grade math scores this year than in 2005, the previous time the tests were given. Cleveland saw its scores drop, while the rest of the districts had flat scores.
In eighth-grade math, Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington had higher scores than two years ago. There was no change for the other districts.
Atlanta and Washington saw their fourth-grade reading scores go up in the two-year period, while Houston scores declined. Scores were flat in the other districts.
On the eighth-grade reading test, Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston and Washington saw their scores increase from 2005. Scores were flat elsewhere.
Some districts that failed to show progress since 2005 did improve when compared over a longer term. For example, while Los Angeles showed no improvement in eighth-grade reading in the past two years, it posted a higher score this year than in 2002.
City kids' math, reading scores lag
Gains made, but not as much as rest of U.S. grade school students
Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - Students in selected city schools are making modest gains on math and reading tests, but they continue to lag their counterparts nationwide, scores released Thursday show.
Eleven urban school districts volunteered to have their students take the tests and be compared with students across the country. The districts were: Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Boston; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Cleveland; Houston; Los Angeles; New York; San Diego; and Washington. Generally, the students in the urban districts scored lower, on average, than the nation. Only Austin and Charlotte posted average scores that mirrored public schools nationally or were higher in some cases.
The city school districts have higher concentrations of minority and low-income students than schools nationwide. Students from these groups tend to score lower on achievement tests than others.
A goal of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law is to reduce achievement gaps between minority and white students and low-income kids and their wealthier peers.
Tests have staff consequences
The law is mainly focused on reading and math and requires schools to test students annually in those subjects and face consequences for missing testing benchmarks. The consequences include, but aren't limited to, having to replace teachers or principals.
Schools have to report test scores by subgroups of students and must show progress is being made. All kids are supposed to be working at grade level by 2014.
Atlanta and Washington were the only districts to see their scores rise significantly over the past two years on the fourth- and eighth-grade reading tests as well as the math tests for both grades.
Both districts, particularly Washington, excluded more kids with limited English skills and disabilities from some tests this year. They weren't alone in taking that action, which can sometimes lead to higher test scores.
Atlanta school superintendent Beverly Hall attributed her district's progress to high-quality professional development for teachers, the recruitment of strong principals, and more time devoted to reading and math.
"If students are taught well, they will learn," Hall said. "I don't think it's rocket science. I don't think there's any quick fix."
Scores from 'Nation's report card'
The scores are from the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test given nationwide periodically on a range of subjects. Known as "the nation's report card," it is considered the best way to compare student achievement across state and district lines.
Math and reading scores released in September for students nationally showed students overall are improving steadily in math but making slower progress in reading.
"These urban districts pretty well mimic the nation," said Darvin Winick, chair of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the tests. "Reading is up. Math is up more."
More specifically, the results show:
Atlanta, Boston, New York and Washington posted higher fourth-grade math scores this year than in 2005, the previous time the tests were given. Cleveland saw its scores drop, while the rest of the districts had flat scores.
In eighth-grade math, Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington had higher scores than two years ago. There was no change for the other districts.
Atlanta and Washington saw their fourth-grade reading scores go up in the two-year period, while Houston scores declined. Scores were flat in the other districts.
On the eighth-grade reading test, Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston and Washington saw their scores increase from 2005. Scores were flat elsewhere.
Some districts that failed to show progress since 2005 did improve when compared over a longer term. For example, while Los Angeles showed no improvement in eighth-grade reading in the past two years, it posted a higher score this year than in 2002.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)