Comments on: Regents Recap — June 2012: Throwing Darts

By: MrHonner

MrHonner — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:02:01 +0000

That’s a great idea. Not only does this demand some higher-level thinking, but it also makes the student explicitly aware that there are limitations to the given model.

Also the new “Common Core Standards” that are being adopted here really emphasize writing and explaining process, and I think this fits right in.

By: Ravi

Ravi — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:20:36 +0000

I agree totally with what you are saying. The question could be improved by doing the following.

Part A – assume the dart has an equal but random chance of landing on any part of the board and then calculate the probability

Part B – List at least four reasons why the assumption in part A might be wrong?

You could give say 80% of the marks for part A and 20% for part B. So the student with a broader understanding can demonstrate it.

By: MrHonner

MrHonner — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:41:30 +0000

Thanks for sharing, Laura. It's not even really the problem that bothers me here, but rather the cumulative effect this has on the classroom and on student learning. Problems (and tests) like these train students to stop asking questions (like, "How many ways can you arrange books on a shelf?"). That is not what 'education' should do.

By: Laura Laing

Laura Laing — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:47:25 +0000

Excellent point. I’ve written this example (or ones like it) many times (at the bequest of a publisher or content developer), and it always bugged me. What if we had a robot shooting the arrow randomly? Not so real-world, eh? *smile*

Great post.

Laura

By: MrHonner

MrHonner — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:57:09 +0000

Nice catch. I didn’t even notice that.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:27:55 +0000

Not to mention the fact that a central spot radius of 2 means that the outer rings are 7/3 inches “wide” – very unlikely. The radius of the board should have been 8″.