"Contradictory but Hard to Understand"... Teachers Underestimating Suneung Examinees [Seocho-dong Legal Talk]

Teachers Who Made Suneung Examinees Cry Twice
Suneung Life Science II Question 20
Consulted Professors and High School Teachers
"Errors Exist but Will Choose the Best Option"
Examinees Say "Treated Students Like Water"
Court: "Clear Errors in Question
Must Test Reasoning and Analytical Skills"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] "It would be difficult for (test-takers) to know this in the actual exam hall."

The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation received objections to question 20 of the 2022 College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) Life Science II exam until the 22nd of last month and consulted a total of 16 university professors and high school teachers. Among them, only one withheld judgment, stating "there is an error in the question." The remaining 15 said, "There is no problem in deciding that choice 5 is the correct answer." These 15 experts commented, "Although there is a logical contradiction in part of the question, among choices 1 to 5, choice 5 is the best option," and added, "Considering the situation in the actual exam hall where (test-takers) solve this problem, it is unlikely that they would analyze the problem using the condition 'The frequency of B in groups I and II is the same' (the latter part of condition 4)."

This is from the ruling of an administrative court on the 15th, which ordered the cancellation of the decision that choice 5 was the correct answer to question 20 of the Life Science II CSAT. In fact, it seems the teachers underestimated the abilities of the test-takers. The test-takers viewed this as "basically looking down on them."

The test-takers won the lawsuit they filed, proving the teachers’ expectations wrong. The legal and educational communities even praised it as a victory of "collective intelligence."

The problematic Life Science II question 20 asked about the Hardy-Weinberg principle, which states that if there are no variables, the genetic structure remains unchanged over many generations. A population where this principle holds is called a "Mendelian population," and the opposite is called a "non-Mendelian population."

Assuming the test-takers understood this principle, they had to deduce the identities of animal populations I and II that satisfy conditions 1 through 7, and then select the correct statements among ㄱ to ㄷ in another choice. What confused the test-takers were condition 3, which stated "The dominance relationship between B and B* is clear," and condition 4, which stated "The frequency of B in groups I and II is the same." Although the dominance relationship between B and B* was clear, which allele was dominant or recessive was not specified, so test-takers had to split cases, apply formulas, and analyze them. According to condition 4, they also had to consider the possibility that both groups I and II were Mendelian populations. Among the cases analyzed, when group II was a Mendelian population and B* was dominant over B, the number of individuals with genotype B*B* in group I came out as -10, a negative number.

The test-takers claimed this was an error in the question. An animal individual refers to a tangible entity visible to us, so when expressed as a number, it must be zero or a positive integer, never negative. It is like saying "There are -2 apples on the plate," which is impossible. Most test-takers discovered this during the verification process after completing the solution steps. The court considered all these circumstances and facts in its ruling. In particular, it found an error in the question by vividly imagining the situation in which test-takers solve the problem.

The court stated, "Test-takers who attempted a more thorough solution using condition 4 inevitably concluded that there cannot be populations I and II that satisfy all the conditions, so there is a clear error in the question." It also said, "We must consider all types of test-takers, including those who chose choice 5 without verification and those who found the error but still chose choice 5, and recognize the various solution methods each used," adding, "It cannot be concluded that there is a difference in mathematical ability among these test-takers."

The court especially pointed out, "The science inquiry section should avoid evaluations based solely on simple memorization and recall, and should be designed to measure reasoning, analysis, and inquiry abilities," and "As long as (test-takers’) original solution methods have logical and rational validity, the questions should be constructed so that valid answers can be derived even if the solution method intended by the test agency is not used."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.