CORRESPONDENCE MASTERY TESTS IN CHEMISTRY erence books he can't answer the questions on the exam, To the Editor hecause he has learned different words. This type of DEARSIR: test penalizes the intelligent student--or would if he I have just received an advertisement, with sample weren't intelligent enough to know when to be stupid. pages, of Fowler and Kane's "Mastery Tests in ChemTrue-false and completion questions require more istry." I am probably late in, emitting this wail, as care in their construction than any other. If they are these tests have apparently been in use for some time. not painstakingly ConstmCted they show, not the inOthers may have wailed before me. I hope so. telligence of the pupil, but the stupidity of the examiWe have all been brought up to greet with laughter ner. that famous old question, "Who. dragged whom bow Let me close with just one last question: --- is a steelmany times around the walls of what!" It is supposed gray solid, --- is a greenish yellow gas, and --- is a brown to represent everything that an examination question liquid. Well, I think that I'd insert "steel," "chloshould not be. And yet here is a set of examinations, rine," and "bouillon." or tests, perhaps, where about one question in five is of And I'd probably be marked wrong. this type, if the three samples are any criterion. Take DANIELL U ~ MORRIS N the following: An element has 39 protons and 20 elecTHEPUTNEY SCHOOL trons in its It is therefore a --- conductor of ---. PUTNEY. VERMONT Without trying to see what the examiner wanted the student to answer, let's see a few of the ways that he could have answered it. He could have filled the first To the Editor blank with either "nucleus" or "nucleus and inner ring" or "nucleus and first two rings," etc. In any of DEARSIR: I am in receipt of your communication to Ginn and these cases it would have been a "good" conductor of "electricity" or of "heat," or a poor conductor of mag- Company referring to our "Mastery Tests in Chemisnetic lines of force, or if the student wanted to be face- try." tious he could have said that the element was a poor We are fully aware of the lack of complete objectivity of some of the questions in the "Mastery Tests conductor of trolley cars. That would be true. How about this: Inert elements show no power to in Chemistty." In fact, we make no claim as to their - - - or to - - - electrons. As a student I should have "objectivity," "validity," nor "reliability." These been tempted to insert "help" and "harm." That's words appear nowhere on the tests. We do claim the probably true. The answer the examiner wanted is tests are instructional and help in the "mastery" of chemistry. Since this is the first letter of its kind that not true. Radon is an inert gas, and i t does lose-no, I take i t back-it doesn't lose electrons, but it does lose we have received in the four years the tests have been protons. I had to look that up; what about the poor in use, we assume our users caught this point which student? evidently Mr. Morris missed in his critical review. . has taken t o Then take the following questions, of the "true and We appreciate the trouble ~ r Morris false" variety. read our book, "Chemistry for Today," and to ex1. The gardener makes a practical classification of amine the tests and voice his criticism. We would have been still more appreciative of a letter written diplants. 2. The botanist makes a natural classification of rectly to us rather than to the editor of the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION.It see~ksto us that would plants. The first is all right by me. I'd be i ~ l i n e dto doubt have been equally effective and equally indicative of a the second, just because true and false questions always sincere desire to improve the tests. All teachers, as put me on my guard. I don't know how "natural" the well as authors, should be trying to do their bit to perbotanist's classification is. And which botanist, any- fect the teaching of chemistry. We all agree there is plenty of opportunity to improve the content, method, way? 3. A practical classification has a fundamental and testing program in the teaching of chemistry in high school. basis, such as similarity in structure. Taking up Mr. Morris' criticism, point by point, That sounds reasonable enough, but I know-because I have read the book-that the answer is sup- may I state: posed to be "false." I. The element in question has 39 protons and 20 And there's the crux of the matter. This test is electrons in its nucleus; 39 protons, 20 electrons, and based upon one book. It examines the student on the 2 additional electrons, in the nucleus and first ring; words that he has learned from this book. If he bap- 39 protons, 20 electrons in the nucleus, 2 additional pens to look things up in the encyclopedia or other ref- electrons in the first ring and 8 additional electrons i n 59'2
---.
the second ring, etc. Undoubtedly, we shall introduce the term "neutron" when the tests are revised. While the other answers might be possible they are not logical, as based upon the statement, and are unscientific. 11. The question refers to electrons, not protons. Inert elements do not lose electrons, nor gain them. 111. Figures-1," "2," "3" teach a fundamentalfact of science. Surely we are not to be criticized unfavorably for that? If an encyclopedia or other hooks teach differently, they are wrong. A gardener makes a practical classification when he grows tomatoes and sells them on the market as a vegetable. He would be run off the market if he sold them as a fruit, which they are according to the classification of the botanist. A botanist is a scientist. Does our critic mean that the student is stupid if he knows the meaning of practi-
cal classification, natural classification, gardener, and botanist? Mr. Morris states that the tests follow the hook and examine the students on the words in the book. That is correct. I t is what the tests were intended to do, for the words in the hook convey the meanings and understandings we want the pupils to get. IV. This question is written under a unit entitled, "The Periodic Law; the Halogen and Phosphorus Families." Such answers as proposed by Mr. Morris are illogical, unscientific, and not to be tolerated from pupils in a class in chemistry. GEORGE W. FOWLER Bamo OF EDUCATION SYRACU~E. NEW YORK
