Children's performance estimation in mathematics and science tests over a school year: A pilot study

The metacognitve ability to accurately estimate ones performance in a test, is assumed to be of central importance for initializing task-oriented effort. In addition activating adequate problem-solving strategies, and engaging in efficient error detection and correction. Although school children's' ability to estimate their own performance has been widely investigated, this was mostly done under highly-controlled, experimental set-ups including only one single test occasion. Method: The aim of this study was to investigate this metacognitive ability in the context of real achievement tests in mathematics. Developed and applied by a teacher of a 5th grade class over the course of a school year these tests allowed the exploration of the variability of performance estimation accuracy as a function of test difficulty. Results: Mean performance estimations were generally close to actual performance with somewhat less variability compared to test performance. When grouping the children into three achievement levels, results revealed higher accuracy of performance estimations in the high achievers compared to the low and average achievers. In order to explore the generalization of these findings, analyses were also conducted for the same children's tests in their science classes revealing a very similar pattern of results compared to the domain of mathematics. Discussion and Conclusion: By and large, the present study, in a natural environment, confirmed previous laboratory findings but also offered additional insights into the generalisation and the test dependency of students' performances estimations.

What's Happening? Allan Kaprow and Claes Oldenburg Argue About Art And Life

In 1961 Allan Kaprow (1927–2006) and Claes Oldenburg (b. 1929) exchanged a number of letters in which they argued about the definition of their avant-garde practices as Happenings. Kaprow, who first introduced this "root-metaphor," as he would later call it, describes with it the necessity of the respective activity to be as far removed as possible from all motives, materials, and formats conventionally connected to art. Oldenburg, who at the time of this exchange was just as active in the New York performance scene as Kaprow, disagrees with his colleague's removal of their practice from the artistic sphere. Oldenburg is also dissatisfied with the fact that Kaprow, through his writings, launches a critical discourse that follows his own definition of the Happening. The two artists thus argue just as much about the positioning of their practices with respect to art as over the authority to establish such a position. This essay traces their argument through their written conversation and in doing so exposes the immense influence Kaprow's rhetoric had on the subsequent art-historical canonization of their respective practices: Oldenburg's more ambivalent position is today amalgamated with Kaprow's theoretical stance.