On 22 Jan 2001 15:58:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
> At 03:28 PM 1/22/01 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote:
< snip, details of my alternative examples of statements >
> as i said before ... given the stem and the choice C of 1 foot ... i think
> any intelligent examinee could argue logically that this is the correct
> answer ... or, if the test builder wanted to claim D or 2 feet is the
> correct answer ... that C would have to be given equal correct weight ...
>
> there just is no good way to argue against the original choice C ... IN THE
> CONTEXT OF THE STEM OF THE QUESTION
>
- I wonder if other people got lost in the discussion? So far as I
remember, no one suggested that the actual choice wasn't C.
But here are words from what was originally posted:
========== part of post, extracted
Do you think the question is actually OK? Is the wording good enough
as it stands? Or, as worded, could there be a legitimate uncertainty
about which answer is correct?
BEGIN QUESTION TEXT
37. When Matt's and Damien's broad jumps were measured accurately to
the nearest foot, each measurement was 21 feet. Which statement best
describes the greatest possible difference in the lengths of Matt�s
jump and Damien's jump?
A. One jump could be up to 1/4 foot longer than the other.
B. One jump could be up to 1/2 foot longer than the other.
C. One jump could be up to 1 foot longer than the other.
D. One jump could be up to 2 feet longer than the other.
END QUESTION TEXT
ObPuzzle: Assume that the wording needs improvement. Assume that the
concept to be tested is < rounding off ... >
======== end of extract from post.
There are at least 3 distractors in there, which I identified before.
Maybe they make this a better item for General Intelligence (or,
Intelligence and acculturation). (Stupid phraseology of rounding;
rounding of SIZE rather than numbers; "greatest possible difference"
in the Q invokes "at least 1 foot" as the minimum - before presenting
answers without the proper alternative.) (Is it possible to test
"rounding" without using the word "rounding"? - I suspect that the
simple attempt, like this, may be something that breeds scorn and
contempt into the hearts and minds of mathophobics, everywhere.)
They make this a sloppy test of Rounding, i.e,
Does the pupil understand the concepts of rounding off numbers?
- well, there are rational plus neurotic reasons to resist.
The most obvious reason to answer C, in my opinion, is that the item
is an obvious probe, "Do you understand Rounding"?
Further: I have had trouble making this point to people, but I am
pretty sure that "measured accurately to the nearest foot" is context
dependent, or an idiomatic expression. The 2nd reason to answer C is
that the test-item is a probe, "Do you understand *that* idiom?" -
and if you haven't paid attention in math-class, it's likely you
don't.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
