I was addressing one-question-at-a-time in the context of AstroClarinet's post, which argued that single questions with short time constraints are one way to discourage cheating. (I don't disagree, I just think it's suboptimal.) One-question-at-a-time with short time length seems just as strong an emphasis on speed to me.knightmoves wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 11:00 amI suppose whether you like long tests or not depends on whether you think getting the correct answer 10s faster than someone else is a particularly valuable thing. Like East said earlier, long tests emphasize speed. I think it's a good thing to get answers fast, but it's not the only thing. I'd rather have a test with progressively more difficult questions that tested whether people could answer the hard ones than a test that tested how fast they could answer easier questions.
One question at a time with a fixed time-per-question is almost the opposite of long tests. As long as you can complete the question in the time available, it doesn't reward speed at all, but does reward accuracy and being able to answer hard questions.
(On the subject of anti-cheating, there are plenty of technological ways to prevent people from cheating in online tests, but none of them are compatible with the goal of allowing people to compete from whatever device they have (which might be a school-issue chromebook, or might be a personally-owned device).
There are plenty of technological ways... that can't be used because they limit test accessibility and invade privacy. Long tests prevent cheating, BUT are non-invasive and, as far as I know, are accessible from a school laptop.
"I think it's a good thing to get answers fast, but it's not the only thing. I'd rather have a test with progressively more difficult questions that tested whether people could answer the hard ones than a test that tested how fast they could answer easier questions."
I am tired of the implication that all long tests are easy questions that do not require thinking. Why can long tests not have critical thinking?
With larger competitions, you WILL get teams of equal knowledge. Higher speed with the same accuracy/critical thinking should be rewarded when there would otherwise be a tie. Building speed takes time and practice. I agree speed shouldn't be the only thing a competitor is tested on. I am tired of the implication that a long test only tests speed and not critical thinking.