Hilarious excuse why US students compare so poorly with foreigners

[xiggi]

<p>Skrlvr, at this stage, it might be best to agree to disagree on the issue of ambiguity of the question. While I see the question as very clear and comparable to the typical SAT or PSAT question, you believe it to be ambiguous. Unfortunately, there is no way for me to convince you that I am correct, or … vice versa. </p>

<p>However, when I posted the article, I opined that the excuses used to explain the 68% failure of US students were hilarious and pathetic. For good measure, here were the FOUR items questioned by the Holliday tandem. </p>

<p>

First, how many U.S. students have a good sense of how to the measure 25 centimeters? Though Canadian students would not be disadvantaged by this issue, most U.S. students would be. We suspect that most U.S. students are clueless about exactly the length of 25 centimeters of ribbon, because this system of measurement is not regularly emphasized in schools and in
society—unlike in Canada, where some students recognize that it is about 12 inches. Sure, the metric system is covered in math and science classes, but how much of this information is retained and useable by the average U.S. high school student, who very seldom uses metric measures beyond the
classroom compared to students living in other countries?</p>

<p>Second, how many students “wrap some ribbon around a box”? </p>

<p>Third, how many “tie a bow”? When wrapping packages, most U.S. and Canadian students would place a self-adhesive bow on the package without placing additional ribbon on the package. </p>

<p>Fourth, how many students would want to know with any precision “how long a piece of ribbon” is needed to wrap a box with “25 centimeters left to tie
a bow”? </p>

<p>Thus, this word problem may be viewed as irrelevant to many students.
Many of the Canadian and U.S. students we have taught and observed, even those enrolled in advanced pre-calculus and advanced-placement science courses, perhaps would call this a trick or unfair question that fails to assess students’ real understanding of their achievement in math.

</p>

<p>As best as I can see, the “subtle” problems raised by the authors of the article quoted were about conversion of metric standards, experience with wrapping boxes, experience with tying a box, and relevance of the entire exercise. They did not bring up the issue of a confusing problem statement.</p>

<p>And, yes, I found the attempt to excuse the poor performance through those FOUR items hilarious and pathetic. Fwiw, while I do not agree with a conclusion that the question or the test were problematic, I would have accepted more easily a position decrying the ambiguity of the question --as you did. However, that is NOT what the scholars did.</p>

<p>For the record, I am completely in favor of questioning or scrutinizing every question that appears on a PSAT, SAT, or other test. I have done this repeatedly when looking at questions written by companies such as Princeton Review, Kaplan, and even the ACT, which often suffers from poorly designed questions. </p>

<p>PS The issue of self-esteem versus actual results is a subject often discussed when approaching the TIMMS and PISA test. The origin of the discussion stems from a series of question posed to the student. When asked how well US students *thought *they did, most expressed a high level of confidence. Japanese students, for instance, expressed greater doubts about their perfomance. Unfortunately, for the US, the bravado did not change the results of the tests that hardly matched the confidence of the students.</p>