I like the new Integrated Geometry regents. Despite it being a “standards-based” exam, the subject is so narrowly focused that it looks a lot more like a traditional test of content. However, they are still testing standards, and managed to over- and under-test some skills.

Overtested:

• Equation of a circle. Questions 10, 20, and 22.
• Equations of lines (parallel and perpendicular, etc). Questions 7, 26, 31.
• 3-d concepts. Questions 4, 18, 28
• Simple transformations in the coordinate plane. Questions 3, 5, 8, 37

Undertested:

• Coordinate geometry (I suppose 19 might barely count)
• No isosceles triangles?
• No special quadrilaterals?

I am probably missing something.

There has been extensive discussion among NYS math teachers at the Association of Mathematics Teachers of NY State listserve

Next up: some questions about questions. There were problems….

9 Comments leave one →
June 28, 2009 am30 9:38 am 9:38 am

Being a student I thought the exam was fairly easy. Yeah they did test a lot about equations of circles but that was easy. The proof was preety easy too. I got verticle angles and midpoint but I missed the last part. :( By raw score was a 38 so i got a 63. So I guess I gotta retake it in August. I just wish I knew what I got wrong so I can study it.

June 30, 2009 pm30 10:08 pm 10:08 pm

Ask for a photo copy of your exam from your school principle.

July 1, 2009 pm31 8:05 pm 8:05 pm

You thought the exam was easy, but you failed?

2. Ryan from above ^^^ permalink
June 28, 2009 am30 9:40 am 9:40 am

I am guessing the last question on the August Geo regents it going to be a corrdinate geo proof bc their were none of those on this one. They already had triangles (June) and a circle on the sampler. Whart do you think?

July 29, 2009 pm31 3:33 pm 3:33 pm

I fail to understand how coordinate geometry is undertested if at least three of your four overtested categories emphasize Descartes over Euclid.

It’s very sad that these tests seem to be based on straightforward textbook problems, rather than critical thinking. What’s the point of seeing if students can duplicate the worked examples from their textbooks with minor substitutions? How does one distinguish between actual learning and mere mimicry? Standardized math exams should have a portfolio section like for standardized art exams, where the students submit more involved work.

• July 30, 2009 am31 12:27 am 12:27 am

There was no question asking kids to prove something using coordinate geometry. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

I’m not so sure that the exam consisted of straight textbook-type problems, but even if they did, this is math, and those problems can be hard. Mimicry is, sometimes, an important starting point, one that many students do not reach.

A portfolio section? Yucch. But on the older regents, there were longer questions, 10 points, partial credit. That would be an improvement.