World-class population genetics scholar points out errors in the Korean SAT exam on Twitter

Report the problem to the researcher and ask him to make a comment. Share on Twitter.

In the commentary, the evaluator mentions and strongly criticizes… “Intentionally turning away from the truth”

(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Yoo Seon-hyun = One of the world’s top scholars in the field of population genetics, Jonathan Pritchard, Stanford University Bing Professor, conducted a scientific inquiry on Korea’s 2022 Scholastic Ability Test (SAT) He pointed out the error in question 20 in the area life sciences Ⅱ through Twitter.

Professor Pritchard, a member of the American Academy of Sciences, has been researching genetic variation and evolution using mathematical and statistical methods and computer algorithms.

Professor Pritchard shared a commentary on the question on Twitter on the 11th (Korean time) and said, “popgen, a high stakes college entrance exam, a mathematical paradox, and a court injunction)” and “It has all the (interesting) elements” (This story has it all).

It is known that he received the information from a Korean student.

◇ Point out “mathematical contradiction”

According to related tweets and threads, after obtaining the question, Professor Pritchard threw a weekend assignment using the messenger ‘Slack’ for work, asking researchers working in his lab to solve it.

The commentary that Professor Pritchard shared on Twitter was written by researcher Matthew Aguirre, a doctoral student in this lab, after receiving questions from Professor Pritchard.

Researcher Aguirre put quotation marks around the word “Solution” while explaining the problem. This is an expression written to emphasize that there is no ‘correct solution’ in the first place because there is an irresolvable contradiction in this question.

He explained the background by citing a Yonhap News English article dealing with the decision of a Korean court to suspend the validity of the correct answer to this exam question, and said, “It is unreasonably difficult, (spoiler alert!) and in fact, it is impossible to solve.” explained.

◇ The Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation denies the claim.

Researcher Aguirre mentioned the official Twitter account (@KICEPR) along with the real name of the institution of the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) that issued this question and said, ‘Even if the conditions of the question are incomplete, the question can be answered, so the validity of the question is maintained’. refuted the appraisal board’s argument head-on.

Researcher Aguirre introduced the situation, “Boa Hani, the Korean Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (@KICEPR) is claiming that the validity of this question is maintained because it can provide an answer before it finds a contradiction in the problem-solving process.”

He further pointed out that the only reason the evaluator was able to come up with an answer before finding a contradiction was because he took a particular approach, and that taking another approach would lead to a contradiction before he could even come up with an answer.

In the meantime, the “solution” including the detailed calculation process corresponding to it was also disclosed.

Solving a problem using the ‘evaluator method’ becomes a process of ‘betting an answer’ → ‘checking’ → ‘discovering contradictions’.

In contrast, when a problem is solved using the ‘another approach’ introduced by Researcher Aguirre, inconsistencies are discovered even before an answer is found.

Researcher Aguirre strongly criticized the attitude of the Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, noting that “to say that there is a valid solution, one must intentionally continue to turn away from the truth (willful blindness).”

◇ Litigation for errors in the 20th question of the SAT Life Science II… 1st trial in progress

Life Science II No. 20, which was controversial in the SAT for the academic year 2022 held in November of this year, finds the group in which the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is maintained among groups I and II, and based on this, [보기]It is a question to evaluate whether it is possible to judge the authenticity of

The objectors argued that the question itself was an error because there was a significant error in which the number of individuals in a specific group became negative (-), and there could not exist a group that satisfies the presented conditions at the same time, and that the correct answer should be acknowledged to the evaluator immediately after the entrance exam. did.

Among the students studying the subject, as well as teachers, hagwon instructors, and related experts, opinions emerged that there were errors in the question itself and that the correct answer could not exist.

However, on the 29th of last month, the Evaluation Institute concluded that this question was ‘nothing wrong’, arguing, “Even if the conditions of this question are not perfect, the validity as an assessment question to discriminate the level of academic achievement is maintained.”

Accordingly, 92 candidates for Life Science II filed an administrative lawsuit along with an application for suspension of execution. I ordered the evaluator to do it.

An official from the Evaluation Institute said, “Even if the number of individuals is negative, there is no problem in finding the correct answer,” said an official at the Evaluation Institute on the 10th. Even if the number of individuals is negative, we can fully imagine what kind of evolution will occur in this group.”

The result of the trial of the first trial in this case is scheduled to be delivered at 1:30 pm on the 17th of this month.

[email protected]

<저작권자(c) 연합뉴스,
Unauthorized reproduction-redistribution prohibited>
2021/12/11 15:12 Send

Original Source