I'm not a huge standardized test fan, and I agree that hands-on learning can be beneficial. However, I believe this article is fundamentally misrepresenting the situation it's critiquing.
First off, the sample is not a science question, it's a reading comprehension question. Fortunately, it's actually written so as to benefit both science-lovers who can use common sense to decipher the answer
and readers who can simply read it. (Contrary to the article, you can easily know both the answer and the purpose of a microscope from reading Caution #4 and sentence 1, respectively.) Nor is there anything wrong with a 60% incorrect rate. Too little variance in correct-response rates makes it hard to students' actual levels and areas of growth. Scores are comparative.
Hands-on learning is certainly helpful
in conjunction with theory. But as a substitute? The
monkeys that typed Hamlet didn't actually learn iambic pentameter. The problem isn't chiefly one of testing students' grasp of theory, but of finding additional incentives for schools directed towards teaching problem solving and practical understanding.
But as IKE said, be careful what you replace. Standardized tests aren't perfect, and they can and are being improved. Educational policy on incentives is not perfect and similarly needs work. But nothing (except life) can test everything you need to know.
But standardized exams certainly do test some of it.
First 9 questions I randomly chose.