AKICILJ: reading a committee's mind, again

[redbird]

This sentence is nonsense as written, but I have to work with it (it's in a state science standard, one of the sort that seems to have been written by a committee that did not include a competent editor or any final review process). I have a couple of guesses as to what they might have been groping for, but any suggestions are welcome:

"Summarize data to show the cause and effect relationship between qualitative and quantitative observations (using standard, metric, and non-standard units of measurement)."

---

ETA: On the off chance it will help anything, here's the entire paragraph, which is part of the "inquiry strand" from the Mississippi eighth grade science standard:

"1c Summarize Data
The learner will be able to c. Summarize data to show the cause and effect relationship between qualitative and quantitative observations (using standard, metric, and non-standard units of measurement). (DOK 3)
Tools (e.g., English rulers [to the nearest one-sixteenth of an inch], metric rulers [to the nearest millimeter], thermometers, scales, hand lenses, microscopes, balances, clocks, calculators, anemometers, rain gauges, barometers, hygrometers, telescopes, compasses, spring scales, pH indicators, stopwatches, graduated cylinders, medicine droppers) Types of data (e.g., linear measures, mass, volume, temperature, area, perimeter) Resources (e.g., Internet, electronic encyclopedias, journals, community resources, etc.)."

"DOK" in this field means "depth of knowledge level," on a range from simple memorization of facts to understanding and using concepts. I think it runs 1-4, with 1 the simplest; the idea of the DOK3 is that it's not sufficient for them to be able to say "the meter is a unit of length" if they can't actually measure things, or know when to use meters, and when to use liters or grams or degrees.

Comments

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Without more context, I can't even approach "a couple of guesses as to what they might have been groping for." I wish you luck!

[geekosaur]

*blinkblink* That's even more confused than I seem to be today.

[lisajulie.livejournal.com]

OK, thinking with my mouth here... (syntax a little whacky)

qualitative = what is there
quantitative = how much of what is there is there

without qualitative observations, there can be no quantitative observations. Thus:

cause: qualitative observations
effect: quantitative observations (assuming sufficient kinds of data)

As for units of data, they really depend on the initial observations.

So, it might read (I'm assuming you can kinda rewrite it or further explain it):

Summarize the data to show how the presence of qualitative data and the specific units it is related in is a necessary precursor to quantitative observations. If the quantitative observations are reported in units differing from the originally observed qualitative observations, the conversion factors must be explicitly state.

Wow. Don't think that would work.

Woofp.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I've never seen such a scientistic sentence in my life.

I think maybe they want the kids to repeat the Michelson-Morley experiments, and to measure the speed of light in inches per season, metres per second, and furlongs per fortnight.

I've figured out the last part -- they mean ounces (standard), kilos (metric), and cups (non-standard)!

Baffled of Montreal, with memories of Z's school wanting him to distinguish between "astral" and "cosmic".

[redbird]

You may be right about "non-standard."

With some of the math books for the younger grades, "non-standard" means things like measuring their school desks in terms of the length of their composition books, or those books as so many paperclips, along with or before measuring them in meters or feet and inches.

[redbird]

I've tossed in the context, but I doubt it will help you.

[daze39.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the general idea is that students should learn to analyze numbers from measurements and experiments ("quantitative" observations), and say something descriptive ("qualitative" observations) about them... is there a trend that suggests that something interesting is going on, or a correlation that tends to give evidence for one hypothesis vs. another, etc. - are the blue bugs bigger than the black bugs? let's measure some of them and see!

At least I think that's what they're getting at: is indeed a valuable thing for a science text for junior high students to make a point of teaching them to ask and answer this sort of question - "what are the numbers telling us, and why is this interestng?" (Though I would agree that the wording of the original "standard" seems a little obscure...)

[maryread.livejournal.com]

Yikes! the ecudationists strike again! Have you read The Underground Grammarian (Less Than Words Can Say etc)? Bringing to bear all my credentials and decades of study, with ability to translate into language native speakers of American can understand:

That long list of measuring devices are things that the students should have tried out and fooled around with, and know some of their context. They may have noticed that accuracy varies, depending on what you're measuring, which is important depending on why you want to measure it.

I think that's where it's heading. More or less. Eighth-grade science is not, like, rocket science. Unless or course it's a rocket club. More like cooking, weather observations, maybe some dissections.

If you have to write this back into educationese, though, good luck with that. The muddy thinking is part and parcel of the jargon. You seem to be making more sense of it than was put in to start with.

But you know ecudationism is one of my sore spots.

[redbird]

The list of tools I'm fine with. I just threw it in for more context.

No, I don't need to rewrite that sentence. I need to look at the lessons we're asking our writer for, to see which if any of them plausibly connect to it. (The lessons are about things like knowing their way around the periodic table, acids and bases, and Newton's laws of motion.)

[maryread.livejournal.com]

Sorry, you know I tend to froth incoherently on the subject of curricula.

But wow. Measuring this and that. In those subject areas. It seems a stretch. Actual lab equipment in most elementary and middle schools being limited to paper and pencils for the most part (and rulers with a metric side to them), I suppose those are sufficient to "summarize data" if that means they are learning to write thoughtful sentences.

It's why they're working up state science standards, I suppose. (Objective, motivation, procedures, materials: lesson plans, GAAAH.)