Subject: Re: "poor test-Makers?" From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:25:02 -0500 X-Message-Number: 1 Herb Coleman wrote, in response to my asking whether the capacity to = grasp applications of the calculus, Maxwell's electromagnetic equations, or Schr=F6dinger's quantum mechanics wave equation, is just a matter = students' having "been challenged in this way all their lives and have learned = how to play the game"?, as follows:
This is exactly my point. Every test is constructed by a human being =
to look for a specific answer in a specific manner. Thus it follows=20 the test makers theory of logic. The low rate of women in math and=20 the sciences proves my point. I'm not even willing to consider the=20 proposition that women cannot learn math or science. In fact many=20 studies have shown that girls out perform males in math and science=20 until Jr. high.
Herb, there are several points worth discussing in this statement. =
First let me get out of the way a caveat, and also the prejudicial form in which =
your case is expressed. It is only in the "hard sciences" (physics and
chemistry) that women are relatively less successful, not in, e.g., the
biological sciences. And no one says that "women cannot learn math and =
the sciences". (More on this below.) So I'll reword it so that we can =
discuss it properly.
I guess what I was trying to assert here and apparently did so poorly is the basic tenet of constructivism. That is to say that human beings not only construct knowledge but they also construct the way to think about, discuss, and assess knowledge.
An example is the way in which you deconstructed and reconstructed my comment "so that we can discuss it properly". This pre supposes that there is a correct way to frame this discussions and that I had not done so. In reality, we both constructed our points in differing ways.
My whole point in participating in this discussion was to have us at least consider the possibility that the manner in which we are testing might have an impact on learning. If you accept the idea that we construct our knowledge (and I realize that's a big IF) then it follows that each test is constructed by someone to address the way in which they think the answer should come. I fall into this as well. Often my students say , "I'm not sure how to answer that". To me this says that I didn't phrase the question in a way they could understand it.
I mean here we are discussing psychology and many of us agree on terms and ways of doing science. However, if this were written in Kanji or Sanskrit or some other language, most of us would not be able to read it. Our understanding of psychology would not be lessen, we just would understand it as stated in a different language. Likewise the way many mathematicians and scientist explain things is in a language clear to other mathematicians and other scientists but not to the "uninitiated". Through this a semi close club is maintained. This is true of other areas of academia and even other human endeavors as well.
My suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) is that much of what we call failure may have little to do with some inate capacity to learn but inability to learn certain kinds of responses under certain conditions and with certain approaches.
Thus my previous statement about women and science, math and even computers is that much of what's wrong or is turning women away from these areas is the way that we teach about them and not some inate in ability of women to master these areas of human endeavor.
as usual, that's just my opinion...or is it?
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
