In his Phys-L post of 9 Jan 2005 with the above subject title,
Bernard Cleyet (2004) wrote - my insertions at [. . .]:
"Anger is good sometimes. At least I think so. I was going to ask,
was not someone going to respond beyond the list to the execrableness
of the . . . [STAR <http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/index.asp> test on
Physics]. . . to which our esteemed colleague . . . [Larry Woolf
(2004a,b)]. . . informed us? - Hell, I'll do it. The California
Department of Education . . . [CDE - <http://www.cde.ca.gov>]. . .
has a complaint form. . .[where? - I can't find it] . . . I
completed the form including the [material] below. Before I send
[it] and "get into trouble"; Sr. moments, anger, and all that; I
post the [material] below."
For Cleyet's cogent draft to the CDE, see his Phys-L post Cleyet
(2004). A portion reads:
"On the fifth of this month a member of the [Phys-L] list posted two
questions from "your" recently posted Physics Standards Test
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/css05rtqphysics.pdf>. It
resulted in one of the longer threads [44 posts by 21 members] of the
last few years."
After quoting portions of Woolf (2004a,b) Cleyet concludes:
"From the above I hope it is obvious why the questions provoked such
a large number of responses. It also provoked, reading between the
lines, some anger."
I think Cleyet's comments are well put and entirely appropriate.
With regard to STAR test question 3:
3. A student wires a series circuit that includes a block of rubber
and a light bulb. She states that she does not expect the light bulb
to light up
when current is applied to the circuit. Which of the following best
describes her statement?
A. It is a conclusion based on observed data about electrical phenomena.
B. It is a hypothesis based on knowledge of the theory of electrical phenomena.
C. It is a procedure based on her hypothesis about electrical phenomena.
D. It is a theory based on her observations of electrical phenomena.
I suspect that the answer thought to be correct by the test writers
is "B," although it would better have been phrased "It is a
hypothesis based on her knowledge of the ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES OF
MATERIALS." [But check out "Metal Rubber
<http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/12/wo_hoffman122004.asp>.]
I agree entirely with Woolf's (2004b) careful critique of the
question [bracketed by lines "WWWWW. . .":
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Problem 3.
i. Current is not applied to a circuit. Current is usually said to be
injected into a circuit.
ii. The logical way to read this question is as follows: Suppose a certain
amount of current is applied to a circuit containing a light bulb and it
lights up. Now suppose that I inject the same amount of current into this
circuit, which now includes a block of rubber.
As I see it, there is no other logical way to interpret this problem.
In this interpretation, the light bulb will of course light up. So
the question is immediately confusing. And it indicates that the test
writer does not really understand the difference between current and
voltage.
iii. The answers.
If the student had made this circuit at an earlier time, one could conclude
that her statement is based on her observed data. So A is correct.
If the student knew about the electrical properties of materials and
circuits, but had not done the experiment yet, she could hypothesize
that the circuit would not light. So B is correct.
If the student knew about the electrical properties of materials and
circuits from previous experiments, she could make a theoretical prediction
about the behavior of this circuit. So D is correct.
One has to also ask the question: what is the point of this question? Does
this question demonstrate the student has some understanding of how science
is done? I think not.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
I totally disagree with Jack Uretsky's defense of question 3. He wrote:
"You have not explained what is confusing. If the correct answer is
that the bulb lights . . . [this is NOT one of the responses A - D].
. . then the question seems to me to be a good one, and the block of
rubber is a distracting factor."
I would recommend that Bernard might wish to consider further
feedback from list members, but my vote would favor his submission
more or less as written in Cleyet (2004).
Regarding the CDE's vaunted STAR test:
1. In "Pedagogy and Natural Ability" Hake (2003), I wrote:
"Regarding the STAR [CDE 2003] results I suspect that the
[mathematics] gains are primarily in low cognitive level skills that
are emphasized in the California math standards and can be elevated
by the drill and practice so revered by the Mathematically Correct
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mathman/> contingent. But
then, as Sowder (1998) says, this is primarily a question of values."
2. In "Re: The End of Hands-On Science Activities in California's K-8
Classrooms?" [Hake (2004)] I wrote [bracketed by lines "HHHHHHHHH. .
.":
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I think it is important for concerned scientists, science educators,
parents, and the science organizations over which Metzenberg and the
CCC [California Curriculum Commission] are riding roughshod to
communicate [BEFORE the 10-11 March meeting of the State Board] their
objections to the "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional
Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption" [online at
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science>]. It
might help to bring Strauss'(2004) eye-opening report to their
attention. Among those who might profitably be contacted are:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JACK O'CONNELL.
O'Connell is an elected official who:
(a) SEES CA PUBLIC EDUCATION THROUGH GLASSES TINTED DEEP ROSE BY THE
2003 STANDARDIZED TESTING AND REPORTING (STAR) PROGRAM OF CA'S DIRECT
INSTRUCTIONISTS; for less biased views see Pak (2002) and Merrow
(2004); and
(b) serves as Secretary and Executive Officer for the State Board of Education.
California Department of Education (CDE)
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 319-0800
Email: c/o Hilary McLean <hmclean@cde.ca.gov>
Website: <http://www.cde.ca.gov/>
Biography: <http://www.cde.ca.gov/executive/jocbio.htm>.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I have since learned that conduits to the seemingly sequestered Jack
O'Connell are:
Christoper Dowell <cdowell@cde.ca.gov>
Consultant, Curriculum Frameworks Unit
Don Kairott <dkairott@cde.ca.gov>
Administrator, Curriculum Frameworks Unit
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
Bertrand de Jouvenal [I thank Sanjoy Mahajan for this quote.]
REFERENCES
CDE. 2003. California Department of Education News Release, "State
Schools Chief O'Connell Applauds 2003 STAR Results Showing Fifth
Straight Year Of Gains In Student Achievement," online at
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr03/yr03rel43.asp>: "State
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today announced
that overall statewide results for the 2003 Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program show that California's schoolchildren have
demonstrated steady improvement for the fifth straight year. . . .
Solid gains also occurred in the percentage of students achieving
proficient and advanced scores in mathematics in grades two through
seven. The greatest increase was in grade two where 53 percent of the
students scored proficient or advanced in 2003 -- 13 percent more
than in 2001. . . . The 2003 CSTs results for . . . science given in
high school also showed increases. . . . There were both increases in
scores and in the number of students tested on three of the four
discipline-specific science tests: earth science, biology/life
science, and chemistry. There were four new integrated/coordinated
science tests administered in 2003 for which there are no change
statistics available."
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Re: The End of Hands-On Science Activities in
California's K-8 Classrooms?" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=pod&O=A&P=5086>. Post
of 5 Feb 2004 19:57:39-0800 to AERA-K, AP-Physics, Biopi-L, Chemed-L,
FYA-List, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physhare, & POD.
See also Hake (2004b).
Merrow, J. 2004. "No More Tinkering: Remake the Schools," 4 February;
abstract online at
<http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/537107321.html?did=537107321&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Feb+4%2C+2004&author=John+Merrow&desc=Commentary%3B+No+More+Tinkering%3A+Remake+the+Schools>.
Merrow writes: "Where are the people who, 15 years from now, will be
maintaining the planes we fly, processing our tax returns,
distributing medications and changing our IV drips in hospitals,
assembling our cars and teaching our children and grandchildren? In
all probability they're attending public school. And that should be
of grave concern to Californians because the once-impressive public
school system here
has declined precipitously since the late 1950s and early 1960s.
CALIFORNIA HIT BOTTOM ON THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
PROGRESS TESTS IN 1994, AND TODAY, DESPITE SEVERAL YEARS OF SERIOUS
REFORM EFFORTS, CALIFORNIA STUDENTS TEST NINTH FROM THE BOTTOM AMONG
[My CAPS.] Many California schools do not have adequate art, music or
physical education classes; nor do they offer foreign languages,
counseling or well-stocked libraries with full-time librarians. Many
California schools are deteriorating, overcrowded and understaffed.
California teachers have about 25% more students per class than the
national average, while the typical California guidance counselor is
responsible for a mind-boggling 960 students. AS JOHN MOCKLER, WHO
ONCE RAN THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, SAYS, "IT'S LIKE CALCUTTA."[My
CAPS.] John Merrow, is a Peabody Award winner. His documentary,
"First to Worst," has aired on PBS stations]
Pak, J. 2002. "California education receives low marks," Silicon
Valley/San Jose Business Journal, 15 January; online at
<http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/01/14/daily23.html>:
"California ranks near the bottom nationwide in nearly all elementary
and secondary school indicators according to CyberEducation2002, a
report released by the AeA and The Nasdaq Stock Market. . . . Only 18
percent of California's eighth-graders scored at or above proficient
levels on the 2000 math National Assessment for Educational Progress
test, up from 12 percent in 1990. Similarly, only 15 percent of
eighth-graders scored proficient or above on the 2000 science NAEP,
placing California last in the country.